Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology http://btb.sagepub.com

No Kingdom of God for Softies? or, What Was Paul Really Saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9 10 in Context John H. Elliott Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 2004; 34; 17 DOI: 10.1177/014610790403400103

The online version of this article can be found at: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/34/1/17

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/34/1/17

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 No Kingdom of God for Softies? or, What Was Paul Really Saying? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in Context

John H. Ellioft

Abstract

The search for biblical texts on “homosexuals” and “homosexual ac!ivity” presents a particularly prickly problem of contextual reading and interpretation. It involves, among other things, a clash of ancient and modern sexual concepts, constructs, and frames of reference. Attempts at using allegedly relevant texts as moral guidelines today are subject to serious exegetical and hermeneutical constraints.

ong the issues currently challenging the US. church ual” and “homosexual” “orientation,” and operative moral across the denominations, there is none producing as much heat guidelines. This essay has undergone several transmogrifica- and as little light as the burning issue of the place and role of tions over the years to fit specific themes of specific conferences. homosexuals in the church and its offices of leadership. In the The current version, with minor modifications. is appearing in studies commissioned by virtually every major American church a 2004 publication honoring my friend and colleague, Herman body on this topic, attention is dutifully given to ‘‘what the Bible C. Uaetjen of San Francisco Theological Seminary, on the says on homosexuality,” but the conclusions vary widely, with no occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, with the title, Huntingfor consensus anywhere in sight. For Joe and Mary Churchgoer a big Homosexuals at Corinth: Exegetical Tracking Rules and part of the problem is an uncertainty or even an admitted igno- Herrneneutical Caoeats. An initial draft of the paper was com- rance concerning how to read, interpret, and possibly apply the missioned by and presented to a Task Force of the Evangelical Bible to this and other pressing problems of our time. Clarity is Lutheran Church in America on Human Sexuality on needed on at least four points: (I) how to analyze a biblical pas- 4/5/199 1. The final report of this Task Force was published in sage exegetically; (2) the hermeneutical principles guiding any November 1991 under the title, HUMAN SEXUALITYAND exegetical undertaking; (3) the content of the investigated texts THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.A-STUDY FOR THE CHURCH’S themselves-what they state and do not state; where unclarities of REFLECTION AND DELIBERATION. meaning, nuance, and implication of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic formulations are present; how and why translations The Text of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10- vary and represent culturally-specific interpretations; how the Preliminary Considerations meaning of each biblical text is controlled and limited by its com- plex of contexts (literary, historical, geographical, economic, The passage in question reads as follows: social, cultural); and (4) the hermeneutical guidelines concerning the use of any biblical text to shape and inform theological and 9 Do you not know that unjust persons will not inherit the king- ethical decisions today. - dom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither porno;, nor idolaters, With the “ordinary. unprofessional Bible reader” in view, I shall address these issues as I examine a New Testament text, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, frequently mentioned as a biblical pas- John H. Elliott, Dr. Theol. OVestfalische Wilhelms-Universitat, sage relevant to the topic of “what the Bible says on homosexu- Munster, Germany). an Associate Editor of BTB, and author ofJesus ality.” In reading and interpreting this text in the light of its var- Was Not an Ecalifarian. A Critique oJ an Anachronistic and Idealist ious contexts (literary, historical, social, cultural-religious), 1 Theory (BTB 32:75-9I [SUJIJIER20021) AND TheJesus Momrnenf intend to show how one proceeds exegetically, what hermeneu- Was Not Egalitarian But Farnily-orienfd (BIBLICALINTERPRETATION tical principles come into play, and how one assesses the 1 I:173-210 [SUMMER 2003]), is Professor Emeritus of Theology hermeneutical relevance of this biblical text to current discussion and Religious Studies, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA concerning gays, lesbians, and transgender persons, “heterosex- 93 I 17-1080 (e-mail: [email protected]).

17

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 nor adulterers, nor rnulukoi, nor orsenokoifai, eye of the beholder. We frequently see what we have been taught to see or what we wish to see-and not always what is actually 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor there. The “sin” is often in the eye of the beholder. Thus an robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. accurate reading of the Bible never starts with a translation but with the original text-a step impossible for the majority of The terms thought to bear specifically on the issue of Bible readers. From the very getgo. they are thus quite depend- homosexuality are rnalakoi and arsenokoifai. ent on the opinion of “experts,”-translators, commentators and The first problem for most bible readers will be their decoders, who themselves, in the case of I Cor 6:9, have reached inability to read the Greek text. So they shall have to resort to a no agreement on the translation or meaning of the terms thought translation and this introduces problems of its own. Every trans- to be relevant to the topic-of homosexuality. lation is an interpretation. This is the case because all languages Usage of these Greek terms in their linguistic context is encode information from their respective social and cultural sys- essential to consider here. But before doing this, it will be help- tems and no hvo social or cultural systems are identical. They ful for us to first examine the literary and rhetorical context of are alike in some respects but never completely identical. Thus which 1 Cor 6:9-1 I is a part. Limitations of space require translations always run the risk of using culture-specific or mod- brevity on ihis matter. Here are some points that have a substan- ern terms and concepts (so that the reader can understand), but tive bearing on the meaning and thrust of 6:9-1 I. terms and concepts that are alien to the cultures of the texts being translated. Our 1 Corinthians text is a classic case of this The Situation at Corinth and translation and interpretive problem. When “homosexuals” or Paul’s Response in General “homosexual perverts” is used to translate rnalakoi oude arsenokoitai (as is the case in both the RSV and the TEV, for The letter of I Corinthians wvas witten by Paul about the example), a modern, post-Enlightenment term coined late in year 55 CE or so to a small community of Jesus followers that the 19th century-“homosexual”-is used to translate one or Paul had helped establish in the seaport city of Corinth a few hvo Greek terms that literally mean “soft males” and “males years earlier. In this letter Paul answers a series of questions who lie with males.” This represents a serious problem, howev- (7: 1-16: 12) contained in a letter the Corinthians had sent him, er, since “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are conceplual and mounts a powerful critique of, and evangelical response to, constructs of recent time and have no ancient counterparts in a bevy of competing factions, economic divisions, and socio-cul- any ancient language. The term “homosexual” was first coined tural discriminations that were tearing apart the community. by the Austrian-Hungarian Kdroly Mdria Kertbeny (Benkert) Recent adherents to the faith coming from a diversity of social, in 1869 (hvo pamphlets in German). It was then introduced economic, ethnic and cultural backgrounds had different into English in the 1890s by Charles Gilbert Chaddock in his “takes” on the gist of Paul’s gospel and its social and ethical translation of R. Krafft-Ebbing’s PSYCHOPATHIASEXUALIS implications. Self-designated “spirituals” were claiming superi- (2nd edition of the German original of 1887). Thereafter it ority over the “physicals”; the wealthy and powerful were dis- wvas included in the Oxford English Dictionary (I 892). The daining the poor and powerless; the wise demeaned the foolish; word was invented to designate persons who manifested a par- the “strong” claimed superiority over the “weak”; the party of ticular sexual profile reflecting a particular modern construct of one leader opposed parties claiming allegiance to other leaders. gender and sexual differentiation quite divergent from the pre- Confusion reigned regarding the nature of salvation-was it sal- vailing gender construct(s) of the ancient world. vation of the body or liberation from the body? Devaluations of Other biblical versions prefer different translations such as materiality, physicality, and sexuality were asserted in the name Weichlinge, Knabenschander, caiamifes. sodomiles, inoertidos, of some “more advanced” knowledge (gnosis). Notions of free- afeminados, effeminate. Each of these expressions, of course, dom from communal obligations and social responsibility were also is culturally laden. The startling differences among transla- thought by some (the elites in particular) to be the logical con- tions indicate serious problems concerning the sense of the orig- sequence of Paul’s gospel of freedom. This confusion and strife inal terms and make one wonder which, if any of them, comes was accompanied by a plethora of moral problems (around closest to the meaning and implications of the original Greek issues of sexual conduct, litigation against fellow believers, the terms. More on the translation problem anon. For the moment eating of food dedicated to idols, behavior at worship) that had these observations should suffice for demonstrating that even the surfaced in this fledgling community. These problems threaten- claim that this text has bearing on the topic of “homosexuality” ing to destroy the struggling beachhead of the messianic sect at is open to serious question. This illustrates an important, yet Corinth evoked from the apostle Paul one of the most sustained regularly overlooked, hermeneutical point: relevancy of certain and powerful assertions of the unity of believers in Christ to be biblical texts to certain theological or moral issues is often in the found in all the New Testament.

18

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 The problems addressed in chapter six form part of a dis- instance of porneia. The verses attached to 6:1-8, namely w cussion of immoral behavior (porneia) extending from 5:l to 9-1 1, continue on the theme of porneia as they include pornoi 6:20. The theme of porneia, in fact, runs through this section and eid6foZatrai (v 9) in a list of persons excluded from the king- from start to close. Of the 13 occurrences of this family of terms dom of God. Chapter seven introduces a new topic, marriage in 1 Corinthians, all but hvo (7:2; 10:8) are located in chap- (7: 1-40>. The porneia of which Paul speaks (7:2) here appears ters 5-6 (porncia: 5: 1 ; 6: 13; 6: 18 [“flee porneia;” cf. 10: 14, not to be selling oneself as a prostitute and engaging in idolatry “flee idolatry”]; 7:2; porneub: 6: 18; 10:8 [2x; allusion to Num but rather sexual intercourse outside of marriage. 2 I:5-6; cf. 10: 141; porn;: 6: 15, 16; pornos: 5:9, 10, I I ;6:9). Chapter five opens with mention of a case of incest (5:l), The meaning of these terms can vary from a vague form of “sex- a type of porneia condemned even by Gentiles, Paul notes. ual immorality” (whose specific nature is unstated) to “idola- Thus the pornoi referred to a bit later (59, 10) could be under- trous engagement in polytheistic cult” to “unlawful sexual inter- stood as perpetrators of incest. On the other hand, since they course”of persons not married to “selling use of one’s body for appear here in 5:9.and 5: 10, as in 6:9-10, in traditional lists compensation,” with context always determining specific mean- of various types of immoral persons, the term pornoi might have ing. Israelites and followers of Jesus conventionally associated the more general sense of “sexually immoral persons” or “forni- porneia with outsider Gentiles and their forms of polytheistic cators.” In any case, Paul’s chief concern in 51-12 was to worship, so that porneia could always be a term for “idolatry.” denounce this act of incest within the Corinthian community This association is evident in I Corinthians in the juxtaposition because it undermined the moral and social integrity of the of terms in 59 (pornois, eidblolatrais) and 6: 1 1 (pornoi, eiddo- believing community as a whole. The believers are urged to lafroi), and in the linking of worshiping idols (10:7, 14) with “remove him from among you” (52) and to “purge the evil one “indulging in immorality” (1 0:s). The related nouns pornos from your midst” (5: 13). The OT prohibition of incest appears and porn;, used in a literal sense, could designate a male or a in Deuteronomy 22:30 (HT: 23:l; cf. 27:20; Lev 183; female “prostitute,” respectively; and porneia, “prostitution.” 20: 1 1). But the excommunicating injunction, “purge the evil LSJ list “catamite” as the first meaning for pornos and one from your midst,” was employed repeatedly in Deutero- “sodomite” as the second. For the LXX and NT they propose nomic legislation in relation not only to incest but to a variety of the rendition “fornicator.” This is one of LSJ’s less felicitious community-threatening acts (1 3:6, 1 7:7, 19: 19,22:24; 24:7). entries. Or the terms could denote “fornicator” and “fornica- Thus, in regard to 1 Corinthians 5:l-1 1 and the case of tion,” or, more generally and less sexually specific, “immoral incest within the community, this instance of porneia wvas seen person” and “immorality.” They too, however, appear in bibli- by Paul as something that could contaminate the entire commu- cal contexts treating idolatry and apostasy, and, used figurative- nity (as leaven “contaminates” a lump of dough). From this per- ly, could denote foreign governments hostile to God and God’s spective, therefore, the perpetrator had to be expelled (52, 13) people (e.g. Isa 1 :2 1 ;Jer 3:3; Ezek 16:30-3 I, 35; Rev I7:5), and delivered to Satan with the goal of freeing the community or persons practicing idolatry and “whoring after foreign gods” of this contaminating “malice and evil” (5:8) and of seeking his (e.g. Hos 6: 10;Jer 3:2,9; 2 Kgdm 9:22; Rev I9:2). The kin- ultimate repentance and salvation (55). Ethically, Paul’s strat- dred verb porncub could mean either, literally, “to practice pros- egy for dealing with this situation assumes (I) a group of believ- titution” (e.g. I Cor 6:lS) or, figuratively, “to practice idola- ing insiders demarcated from immoral outsiders (5: 12); (2) an try” (e.g. Hos 9: 1 ;Jer 3:6; Ezek 23: 19; Rev 17:2; 18:3, 9), infecting and polluting power of porneia capable of corrupting with the sexual aspects of pagan cults making possible this equa- the entire community (as leaven does a lump of dough); (3) the tion of idolalry and fornication. Thus, porneia and related cultural (Israelite) association of leaven with malice and evil terms in the Bible could denote either actual or metaphorical (58) and the Christian identification of Jesus Christ as paschal prostitution, “peddling one’s body” literally or figuratively. In lamb (associated with unleavened bread, 5:7); and (4) the the latter case, the terms could denote idolatrous and immoral effectiveness of social excommunication as a controlling disci- behavior typical of Gentiles, including, but not restricted to, sex- pline for maintaining ideological and social cohesion. These ual behavior proscribed in Torah or viewed as incompatible with assumptions regarding the necessary demarcation of believing, God’s will. holy insiders from nonbelieving, unholy outsiders and concern- In chapters 5 and 6 of 1 Corinthians, Paul introduces and ing the infectious and contaminating power of immorality and addresses specific instances of immoral behavior (porneia, etc.) unholiness inform all of 5: 1-6:20 and its ethical strategy and in occurring in the Corinthian community of believers: a case of fact the letter as a whole. incest (51, 9), activity as prostitutes (6:13?, 6:16, Is), com- The exhortation of chapter 6 is related thematically to that merce with prostitutes (6: 16, 18), and a related case of inap- of chapter 5 and wvas likewise guided by these assumptions. propriate interaction with unjust/unrighteous unbelievers What relates the issues of litigation (6:1-8), conduct barring (6:1-8) which, as its context suggests, Paul also regards as an admission to the kingdom of God (6:9-1 I), and intercourse

19

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 with prostitutes (6:12-20) to the preceding case of incest is a one communal entity, one integral Body of Christ (6:15. 19; similar social problem and a similar Pauline response inspired IO:l6-17; 11:27; l2:I-l3:13) and to behave accordingly. by a similar set of assumptions: (I) the unacceptable association Thus the aim of the believers as constituents of this new collective of holy insiders (6: I, 1 I, 19) with “unjusthrighteous” out- reality, the “Body of Christ,” should be to live not as independ- siders (6: I). including prostitutes (6: 16), and the illogical sub- ent individuals (“just me and Jesus”), but as persons incorporat- mission of the holy ones to inferior outsiders’ legal judgment ed into the crucified and resurrected body of Jesus Christ (6: 15. (6:1-8); (2) discord within the community (6:1-8) and the 17; 12:12-13), to strengthen and build up this collective body pollution affecting the entire Body of Christ through members’ (8:l; 10:23), to maintain undivided devotion to the Lord . association with prostitutes (6: 15-20; cf. 6: 1 I); and (3) a lib- (7:35), and with this collective body to glorify God (6:20). ertine (6: 12, 13) and arrogant (cf. 52, 6) attitude of certain Membership in (I) the ecclesial Body of Christ, in other words, Corinthians that “all things are lawful” (6: 12; cf. also 10:23 in has specific ethical implications regarding the consumption of (2) regard to eating idol meat and brotherly scandal), a slogan the eucharistic body of Christ and the use of (3) one’s physical apparently implying that for the believers there are no- moral body now unitcd with the.Body of Christ. norms or principles or sanctions now governing moral conduct This examination of the wider and more immediate literary and no reasons for distinguishing members of the Christ com- and rheiorical contexts of 6:9-10 has surfaced several items that munity from others. bear on the meaning of these verses, their specific terms, and the In response, Paul insisted on five basic points. (I) Since thrust of Paul’s &inking and exhortation. believers have been “washed, sanctified and justified” (6: 1 1 b), 1. The letter as a whole (a) addresses problems of congre- they are a new and holy people (6:l, 1 I), different from the gational disparities, dissension, discrimination, and division, way they were prior to their baptism and inclusion into the (b) argues that the attitudes and conduct responsible for these believing community (6: I I a). (2) As members of a holy com- problems are incompatible with membership in the collective munity, they are superior to unjusdunrighteous outsiders Body of the crucified and resurrected Christ, and (c) calls for (adikoi, 6: 1,24and therefore should avoid subjecting them- behavior aimed at demonstrating and maintaining communal selves to the outsiders in their courts of law (6: I, 4, 6). (3) cohesion and ideological commitment to God, Jesus Christ, and They should rather settle disputes among themselves (6:2, 5), one another. In regard to 6:9-10, this means that whatever the and preferably eliminate these legal disputes among believers sense of these verses might be, it must be consistent with this altogether (6:7-8). (4) There are indeed moral principles and integrating and unifying aim of the letter as a whole. standards operative for believers. Believers are called to a 2. In regard to 5:1-6:20, the more immediate context of morality superior to that of unjusdunrighteous (adil

20

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 judgment of unbelieving outsiders who are unsanctified, unjust, society, he said, would have been impossible from a practical and morally inferior. point of view (5: 1 Ob). Furthermore, judging outsiders is not the 4. Continuing on the issue of justice-injustice as well as on task of believers but rather the job of God (5:12-13a). the theme of porneia, Paul then in w 9-1 1 reminds his audience In that earlier letter (described in 5:l 1) he in fact discour- that “unjusdunrighteous persons” (like those of whom he has aged association and dining with certain types offellow belieo- been speaking, 6: I) will not inherit the kingdom of God (v 9a). ers; namely a “brother” who was either a pornos, a greedy per- To illustrate further examples of unjusdunrighteous persons not son (pleonektb), an idolater (eiddolafrb), a reviler (loidoros), inheriting the kingdom of God, he lists ten types of such unjust a drunkard/boozer (rnethyos), or a robber (harpax). It is believ- persons (w 9b-I 0) and comments that some of the Corinthians ers within the community whose conduct was and is Paul’s con- were in fact such persons prior to their baptism and conversion. cern (5:12a), and he now commands the Corinthians to “drive However, through baptism they have been “washed, sanctified, out,” excommunicate, the evil person (pontron; cf. “evil,” 5:8) and justified”-implying their inclusion in the holy Body. of from their midst (5:13b), that is, the male committing the Christ (6:14, 17, 19-20). The ethical implication is that bap- porneia of incest mentioned in 5;l-S and already targeted for tism and incorporation in the holy body of Christ entails a sever- exclusion (52; 5, 7-8). Thus the “immoral persons” men- ance from unjusdunrighteous persons and non-engagement in tioned in 5: 10 were nonbelieving outsiders, not believing insid- the conduct typical of such persons. ers. The list of 5:l I, on the other hand, concerns immoral types The hermeneutical importance of this last observation is offellow belieoers. Nevertheless, the lists mention the same types that the list, of which the terms crucial to our subject are a part, of immoral persons, except that the longer list of 5:11 adds is cited to exemplify types of unjustlunrighteous persons who “reviler and drunkard.” will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (6:9, 10). Whatever the The list in 6:9-10 is longest of the three. It includes all the terms rnalukoi and arsenokoifai might mean, their function in types listed in 5: 10 and all those of 5: 1 1, and it adds four fur- this letter is the same as that of the other terms of the list: to ther terms: “adulterers” (rnoichoi), rnalakoi. arsenokoitai, and exemplify unjusdunrighteous persons-persons different from “thieves” (klepfai), inserting them as a block of four behveen the holy believers and outside the kingdom of God. Peter Zaas “idolaters” and “greedy persons.” (I 988) correctly stressed the close relation of the lists to the sit- Table 1 displays the similarities and differences of the three uation of the letter and discussed their rhetorical function. lists. Terms of 5:ll added to those of 510, and terms of 6:9-10 added to those of 5: 10 and 5: 1 1 are italicized. Homosexuals at Corinth? 1 Cor. 5:10 1 Cor 511 1 Cor 6:9-10 Within this general and more immediate context of the let- immoral immoral immoral ter occurs a list of persons (I Cor 6:9b-l0) that contains hvo greedy greedy idolaters terms at the heart of our investigation, terms that have often robbers .idolater adulterers been cited as evidence that the Bible condemns homosexuals idolaters reciler malakoi and homosexual behavior. The words so understood are drunkard arsenokoitai rnalakoi and arsenokoitai. They are quite rare and their mean- robber thieces ings, very problematic. Several observations are in order here. greedy First, the terms (both masculine) are part of a larger list of drunkards persons declared to be excluded from the kingdom of God revilers (6:9b-10). This list, in turn, is similar to, and expands upon, robbers two previous lists of immoral persons presented in chapter 5. A comparison of the lists indicates that they are similar in some Table 1: The Three Lists of Vices respects and different in others. The shortest of the three is that of 5: 10. It mentions four types of “immoral” persons inhabiting human society outside the The size of the lists and the sequence of terms thus vary. believing community: pornois, (“immoral persons”? “prosti- Moreover, I Corinthians 5: I I lists singular terms, in contrast to tutes”? clients of a prostitute? perpetrators of incest?), greedy the plural terms of 5: 10 and 69-1 0. I Corinthians 5:l 1 enu- persons (pleond&~is).robbers (hatparin), and idolaters (eiddolu- merates types of immoral believer insiders, whereas 1 Corin- frois). This list, says Paul, illustrates types of immoral outsiders of thians 510 and 6:9-10 list types of immoral outsiders. All whom he was not speaking in his earlier letter (5:9a, I 1 a) when three lists commence with the term pornoilpornos, which links he encouraged the Corinthians “not to associate with immoral all these lists to the general theme of porneialimmorality and to persons (pornois)” (59). Avoidance of such persons out there in Paul’s earlier injunction not to associate with pornois (59). As

21

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 already noted, the semantic range of pornos is broad and its its virtually certain that these vice lists in I Corinthian were not meaning here far from certain. It could denote immoral persons, composed by Paul, but were adopted and adapted by him from or male prostitutes, or clients of a prostitute, or perpetrators of existing tradition. This likelihood is strengthened by the fact incest, any one of which meanings would have ties to the con- that in this letter Paul frequently uses the expression “do you text. “Immoral persons” would be consistent with 5: I, 9 and the not know” (I Cor 6:9a) to introduce and recall sources or immoral litigates of 6:1-8. “Male prostitutes” or “clients of a points of knowledge with which he expected his audience to be prostitute” would be consistent with 6: 15-1 8. “Perpetrators of familiar (see 1 Cor 3: 16; 56; 6:2,3, 9, 15, 16, 19; 9: l3,24; incest” would fit the content of 5: 1. The increasing size of the cf. also Rom 6: 16; 1 12). It is also evident, moreover, that the lists could suggest Paul’s moving toward a climactic and inclu- formulation of the source, “will not inherit the kingdom of sive conclusion in chapter 6, where the most comprehensive list God”-so unusual for Paul-inspired Paul’s owvn statement, is given as illustrative of behavior excluding persons from the “do you not know that unjusdunrighteous persons will not inher- kingdom of God. The longest list, 6:9-10. is either the source it the kingdom of Cod.” Paul worded his owvn statement (6:9a) from which the terms of 5: 10 and 1 1 are excerpts (so Scroggs) to fit the language of thesource he was about to cite (6:9b-I 0). or a Pauline expansion of the previous lists through the intention- The function of the list of 6:9b-I 0 wvas to provide examples al addition of the terms adulterers, rnalakoi, arsenokoitai, and of the “unjust/unnghteous persons” mentioned in 6: 1 and 6:9a thieua (so Zaas). The first three of these terms would be ger- (so also Zaas: 626-27). They are like, or even comprise, non- mane to a sexual implication of porneia in 5: 1420,but not the believing outsiders to whom the Corinthian believers should not fourth. On the whole, the lists involve vices stereotypically asso- be taking their internal disputes (6:1-8). Only one of the terms ciated by the Israelites with Gentile outsiders and proscribed of the list, however, is directly linked to the chief theme of within the House of Israel and the Jesus movement. Here their 5: 14x20, porncia, and that is the first term mentioned, namely function appears primarily illustrative and, except for pornoi. Thus it is clear that this list and those of chapter five are pornos/pornoi, involves activities not at the heart of Paul’s con- not at the heart of Paul’s argument, bur rather enumerate stock cern. vices used to illustrate types of behavior inconsistent with mem- The contents of the lists refer to types of persons or actions bership in the Body of Christ and with having been “washed, conventionally proscribed in Greco-Roman culture (e.g. greedy, sanctified, and justified.” (6: 1 I). robbers, reuilers) or Israelite culture (all terms). Similar “vice There are several exegetical implications of these observa- lists’’ appear in Galatians 5: 19-2 1 and Ephesians 5:5 with the tions concerning 6:9-1 1 for our analysis of the terms malakoi statement that such persons will not inherit the “kingdom of and arsenokoitai. (I) Vv 9-1 1 are a continuation and conclu- Cod,” an expression rarely employed by Paul. Of the four sion of a Pauline condemnation of litigation against fellow instances in his authentic letters (Gal 521; 1 Cor 6: 9. 10; believers in the courts of law of “outsiders” (6:1-8). (2) The 15:50), half appear here and in three cases the phrase accom- list in w 9-1 0, like those of 5: 10 and 5: 1 I, wvas not composed panies vice lists (here in 6:9 and 10 and in Galatians 521). by Paul but taken over by him from available hortatory tradi- Such lists or catalogues of vices were a typical component of tion. (3) The list in w 9-1 0, like those of 5: 10 and 5: I I, has Israelite moral exhortation (see Wis. 14:25-27; Sir 7: 1-2 1 ; 1 only an illustrative function and is peripheral to the heart of Enoch 8: 1-4; 2 Enoch 10:4-6; 34: 1-2; 2 Bar. 73:4; I QS Paul’s exhortation. The lists could all be excluded with no dam- 4.9-1 1 ; 10:2 1-23; T. Reub. 3:3-6; T. Dan 1 :6; T. Sim. 3: 1 ; age to Paul’s argument. They are supplemental, not essential. T. Dan 24; T. Jud. 16: I ; Philo, SAC. 32 [ 147 vices!]; Jos. (3) In the list, pornos is the only term related to the chief theme Ac. Ap. 2.19-28; T. Mos. 7:3-10). They were adopted and of 5:1-6:20, namely porneia and its avoidance. None of the used by members of the Christ movement as well (see Matt other terms, including malakoi and arsenokoitai, is connected 15:19/Mark7:21-22; Rom 129-31; 13:13; 1 Cor5:lO-l I; with Paul’s argument or essential to points he is making in 6:9-10; 2 Cor 12:20-21; Gal 5:19-2_!; Eph 4:25-31; 5:1-6:20. (Beyond this context, “idolaters” [6:9; cf. 510, I I] 53-13; Col3:5-9; 1 Tim 1:9-10; 6:4-5; 2 Tim 3:2-5; Tit is related to the issue of idolatry taken up in 8: 1-1 1 :1 .) (4) The 3:3, 9; Rev 21:8; 22:15; cf. also DID.2-5; 5:l-2; HEFW terms rnalakoi and arsenokoitai occur only here in 1 Corinthians h”D. 8.3; Slhl 6.5.5; 9.15.3; Polyc. PHIL. 43; 52, 3; and are not a specific focus of Paul’s attention. (5) At this point 6: I). in our study, it is not certain what their meaning is, why they are The lists of 1 Cor 5: 10, 5: 1 1 and 6:9-10 appear to have present in this list, or what role they have in the point Paul is belonged to this stock of ethical and hortatory tradition, of making. One thing, however, is clear: whatever weight and which Paul and many other Christian authors made use. The moral significance these hvo terms have, must be shared by all facts that language concerning “not inheriting the kingdom of the terms in the list. Or, to put it another way, being malakoi or God” also accompanied some of these lists and that the phrase arsenokoifai is no better or worse than being any other kind of was rarely employed by Paul (except where he cites lists), make person included in the list. Types of immoral or unjust people are

22

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 listed here, but not graded. No vice, including rnalakoi and both remarkable and depressing. With ordinary Bible readers arsenokoifai, receives particular comment or censure. encountering such different versions of the biblical text in one The terms rnalakoi and arsenokoifai occur nowhere else in language alone, to say nothing of differences across cultures, 1 Corinthians and are unique to 1 Corinthians among the gen- what hope is there that religious bodies appealing to this uine Pauline letters. The latter term, arsenokoitai, appears in the Corinthian text could ever reach agreement on what it original- Deutero-Pauline letter of 1 Timothy (I :9-10). never again in ly meant and what meaning it might continue to have today? the NT, and only rarely thereafter. The former term, rnalakoi, John Boswell (I 980: 338-39), summarizing only some appears only hice more in the NT (Matt 1 1 :8/Luke 725) and English versions of this text, put it mildly when he stated that thereafter, combined again with arsenokoifai, in a quotation of 1 this translational variation “inspires skepticism, and close exam- Corinthians 6:9 contained in Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians ination suggests that no modern translations of these terms are (5:3). Given the rarity of this lexical combination in the Greek very accurate.” I would add that the above comparison also world generally, the lack of Pauline and biblical contexts for makes vividly c1ea.r the tendency of modern translations to determining what Paul might have meant by the terms in I ascribe meanings to these terms that reflect modern conceptions Corinthians is especially problematic. Thus it is hardly surpris- of persons labeled “homosexual,” their behavior and moral eval- ing that there is at present no scholarly consensus concerning uation, that mai have little or nothing to do with the meaning of their meaning and significance in 1 Corinthians or concerning the Greek terms in their original cultural context. In other their relevance to the issue of homosexuality. words, this passage, .to which hunters for homosexuals in the There is as much disagreement among Bible translations as Bible have attributed so much significance, offers a classic case there is among commentators. The comparison of Bible transla- of eisegesis displacing sound exegesis, inadvertently reading into tions in Table 2 illustrates the diversity or confusion concerning the text what supposedly is to be elicited from a text. The trans- the assumed meaning of these terms and how that meaning is best lations tell us as much, if not more, about the culture and values rendered in modern languages. of the translators than they do about the culture and values of Paul and his sources. Vulgate: neque molles neque masculorum concubitores Perhaps we as readers or translators or interpreters can Luther noch die Weichlinge noch die Knabenschinder never entirely avoid this danger of ethnocentrism any more than Zircher noch Lustknaben noch Knabenschinder we can change the ocular lenses with which we view all so-called KIV nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with “reality.” As modern readers of ancient and culturally alien mankind texts, none of us possesses “immaculate perception.” But sure- Goodspeed 1923 or sensual or given to unnatural vice ly we can make an effort at some modest degree of objectivity. hloffatt 1926 catamites, sodomites One step in this direction is to ask, like a field anthropologist Bible de Jerusalem 1961 ni dPpraL@s, ni gens de moeurs infames would ask of a native tribe she or he was studying, what do the Jerusalem Bible 1966 catamites, sodomites natives mean by these words? With what values and percep- New JB 1985 self-indulgent, sodomites tions, attitudes and even worldviews are these terms connected? Knox New Testament the effeminate, the sinners against nature What did these terms possibly mean in their original historical, La Biblia 1990 ni 10s afeminados, ni Ios homosmuales social and cultural context? Let us first consider rnalakoi, then La Sacra Bibbia 1981 nh gli effeminati, nd i sodomiti arsenokoifai. NAB 1990 nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals NEB 1970 guilty of ...homosexual perversion Malakoi Nueva Biblia Espanola: incertidos, sodomitas RSV 1916 nor homosexuals The Greek adjective rnalakos literally means “soft.” The RSV 1971 nor sexual penerts term rnalakoi, a masculine plural form used here as a substan- New RSV 19s9 male prostitutes, sodomites tive, means, literally. “soft males.” In its only other NT occur- Revised English Bible sexual penert rence, the Q logion of Matthew 1 I:B/Luke 7:25, it appears TEV 1976 or homosexual perverts hvice as a substantive neuter plural, rnahka (literally, “soft Weynouth NT nor men guilty of unnatural crime things”), which in context denotes “soft clothing.” Addressing the Galilean crowds about John the Baptizer, Jesus asked, Table 2: A Comparison of Bible Translations ‘‘Why then did you go out? To see a man clothed in soft clofh- ing? Behold, those who wear soji clothing live in kings’ houses.” The ironic point of this rhetorical question is clear only from the Another hermeneutical note: the number of different trans- narrative and the cultural context. John, the hearedreaden had lating terms and the semantic differences among these terms is already learned in Matthew 3:l-10, was a wildman prophet

23

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 like those of old, preaching in the desolate wilderness of Judaea, Waetjen). Ancient Mediterraneans viewed human beings as clothed with a coarse and definitely unrefined leather girdle and either male or female, each with nature-given, distinctive, gen- chowing down on locusts and wild honey while denouncing the der-based personal features, social ranking and behavioral holy Pharisees and the priestly elite as “snake bastards.” (The scripts. The ideal male was seen as rational, physically strong, parallel Lukan account [7:18-351 combines in one unit what daring, bold, courageous, competitive, socially and sexually Matthew narrates in two separate accounts [3:1-10; aggressive, rough and tough, hard and hairy, protector of his 1 1 :7-191). John was anything but an aristocratic wealthy fop home and family and embodiment of the family’s honor (its given to the luxuries and refinements of life! In this only other public reputation and status) symbolized in his blood, male occurrence of rnalakos in the NT, the word indicates an item of organ, and testicles. The ideal female was his physical, mental, apparel illustrating the economic-social-cultural distinction be- and moral opposite.. She wvas emotional more than rational, tween robust moral people like Jesus and his predecessor John, physically weak, reticent, modest, sensitive, socially and sexual- on the one hand, and rich elite “softies,” on the other. In first- Iyvulnerable, smooth and gentle, soft and depilated, nurturer of century Palestine, real men didn’t eat quiche and didn’! wear her home and family and’embodiment of her family’s shame soft clothes1 Honest, reliable, salt-of-the-earth people (from the (the vuherability of its honor) symbolized in her blood, breasts 97% lower class) have no connection with kings’ houses, expen- and vuiV;. Since the world of the Bible was a patriarchal world sive threads, and the soft life (enjoyed by only 3% or less of the whose dominant ideas, values, and worldviews were those of the population, its “upper crust”). dominant free males, the male was regarded-males regarded Could the term rnulukoos have such class implications here themselves-as superior “by nature” and the female, inferior, in I Corinthians? If the hermeneutical principle often appealed just as the traits ascribed to the male were judged superior to to in the hunt for homosexuals in the Bible were brought into those ascribed to the female. He wvas dominant and ruled; she play-“let scripture interpret scripture”-a case could be made was subordinate and was ruled. He was on top, she was on the that “soft males” here in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 implies deca- bottom (in bed and everywhere else). He was active; she was dent “rich men” who are always ripping off poor folk (like the passive. He gave; she received. His organ was a plow; hers was Enron swindlers or Charles Keating or Neil Bush or Michael a field. He wvas the “sower”; she was the “soil.” For ancient Milken or Dennis Kozlowvski or Kenny Boy Lay or. . . I cease sources and secondary literature on this ancient construct of for lack of space and spirit). Paul’s cultural context allows this male and female genders see Delaney; Halperin: 1540, as a possibility, since in a world where all goods were seen as in 4 1-53; Halperin et. al.; Malina 1990; Dean-Jones; Malina & scarce and limited supply, rich people were always viewed sus- Neyrey; Winkler; \Villiams; Elliott: 500-99; Malina 2001 : piciously as rapacious thieves expanding their wealth and prof- 27-57. iting at the expense of others (Malina 1979, 1986, 2001: Given this notion of the inferiority of females, male to male 81-133). Such a meaning, moreover, would be consistent with friendships were preferred to male to female relationships. several of the other terms in the list: e. g., “thieves, greedy per- Achilles Tatius, in his story LEUCIPPEAND CLITOPHON,has sons, robbers.” On the other hand, “soft males” could also pos- one of his characters articulate a prevalent view concerning the sibly refer to males with soft physical features, soft skin, hair, or preference for boys over women: cheeks, or soft and gentle in their nature. Or might it imply males who were “soft-headed” or “weak-willed” persons, “lack- To me you sound less like a beginner in sex than an old pro, sur- ing in self-control” (LSJ, s.~.). Or could it mean “ill males,’’ rounding us with all these female complications. Now listen to given the fact that its noun, rnalakia. denoted “sickness, debili- what I have to say in defense of boys. Everything women do is ty, weakness” (BDAG 613). Without extensive knowledge of false, both words and actions. Even if a woman appears to be the cultural context, hoiv could one decide which of these alter- beautiful, it is the laborious contrivance of make-up. Her beauty is natives is more plausible for a first-century audience at Corinth? all perfume, or hair dye, or potions. And if you strip her of all these And yet how often some rush to claim that the term means devices, she’ll look like the jackdaw in the fable, stripped of all his “homosexuals” without further exegetical ado? One thing is feathers. A boy’s beauty isn’t fostered by the scent of myrrh or by absolutely certain: the word wvas no technical, conventional term other false odors; a boy’s sweat smells sweeter than all women’s for males who engaged in sex with other males. It had no sexu- perfumes.. .. al connotation in Matthew and Luke and if it did so in I Corinthians 6:9, this must be demonstrated on other than lin- Accordingly, in this macho-oriented culture, for a male to guistic grounds. appear in any way whatsoever as “womanish” was a horror and Here is where ancient views of males and females, their dif- an immediate occasion for public censure and ridicule. For him fering natures and modes of behavior-that is, ancient con- to display any feature associated with females wvas to deny his structs of gender-become relevant (among other studies see identity and responsibility as a male, a distortion of hoiv nature

24

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 and the gods intended him to be. The same script applied to who were by nature men [who had been born male] to submit to females in reverse: any display on their part of “masculine” play the part of women, they saddled them with the formidable traits was a violation of their feminine identity as established by curse of a female disease. For not only did they emasculate nature and the gods, and constituted conduct earning public [rnalabf6fi] their bodies by luxury and voluptuousness, but they censure and reproach. According to this cultural script, then, worked a further degeneration in their souls and, as far as in them for males to be called “soft” (a quality of females) could have lay, were corrupting the whole of mankind [ON ABRAHAh! constituted a potent public put-down, similar to certain males 135-361. today being called “pussies” or “cunts” or “bitches.” For males to prefer being soft and adopting other “feminine” characteris- Philo’s.concern was less with male-male coitus per se and more tics was disgraceful, repugnant, and a bid for public condemna- with how such intercourse distorted gender roles and promoted tion. In other words, for males to be “effeminate” was a gross the disgraceful effeminization of the passive male partner. violation of moral norms and expectations concerning honorable Similar disgust with males “changing the order of their nature” male conduct. To be sure, this does not mean that such bound- into females and females doing likewise was registered by other ary-crossing behavior never happened. Rather when it did, it Israelites. Pseudo-Phocylides (first century BCE - first century was open to damaging public ridicule and a debilitating loss of CE) writes (SENTENCES, lines 190-92): “Do not transgress honor, reputation, and status. For the ancients it was a short with unlawful sex the limits set by nature. For even animals are step from “effeminate” male youth (“fairies,” “fruits,” “sissies” not pleased by intercourse of male with male. And let women they would be called today) parading around like women to the not imitate the sexual role of men.” He also warns (lines assumption that these “faggots” or “queens” assumed the pas- 2 13-14): “Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, sive, receptive role of women in sexual intercourse with older because many [men] rage for intercourse with a man.” The men and became their “bitches,” as our contemporary jargon effeminate males in view were youths, not children. They were puts it. pubescent boys (paides) who had reached puberty but had not It is crucial here to recognize the fact that sex, as understood yet grown beards. At the same time, they were not adult males by the ancient Greeks (that is, the dominant males), centered on on the same physical, economic, or social level as their partners, the male sexual equipment, the erect penis or phallus, and phal- but were inferior in terms of both age and social station lic penetration of a receptive partner (Halperin: 130). Sex, in (Halperin: 20-2 I). In this respect, male-male sexual relations other words, wvas phallicly conceived, defined, and artistically mirrored and replicated the unequal pattern of male-female rela- depicted. To be “masculine” was to possess and wield a phallus, tions (Dover: 16,84435). Attested male-male sexual relations in to be aggressive, to dominate, to be “on top” physically and antiquity were. with few exceptions, between unequal partners, socially. To be “feminine” was to lack a penis, to be passive, sub- with the older, socially superior male pursuing, dominating, and missive, penetrated, and physically and socially “below” the on occasion, “corrupting” the younger, inferior youth (Halperin: male. This explains the relative lack of male interest in what 20-21). females did with one another (unless surrogate phalluses [aka Philo’s treatise, ON THE CONTEMPLATIVE LIFE dildoes] were involved). Hafperin notes (136) that Plato is “the (59-621, illustrates several of these features of male to male sex- only writer of the classical period to speak about sexual desire ual relations as viewed by Israelites in Paul’s time: the assumed between women” (SYMPOSIUhl 191 E 2-5). It also explains a inferiority of females to males; the “disease of effeminacy;” male major vantage point from which male character and behavior wvas to male sexual relations as older males to youths (and the recip- viewed and evaluated. rocal terms of “beloved” and “lover”); the symbolizing of inter- In the numerous ancient references to male-male sexual course behveen males as sowing seed among rocks and stones; relations, where censure was expressed, it focused chiefly on the and his rationale for the condemnation. Describing the first of disgrace of young males abandoning or at least compromising Plato’s hvo types of banquets, Philo writes: their masculinity and assuming the position and role of inferior, passive, and receptive females (Dover: 100-09). In Plato’s banquet, the talk is almost entirely concerned with love Israelites shared this perspective. For example, Philo. an (erbfos), not merely with lovesickness of men for women, or Israelite contemporary of Paul, commenting on the ancient resi- women for men, passions recognized by the laws of nature, but of dents of Sodom, dwelled on the horror of emasculation: men for other males (andrbn arresin) differing from them only in age. For, if we find some clever subtlety dealing apparently with Men mounted males without respect for the sexual nature [physinl the heavenly Love and Aphrodite, it is brought in to give a touch dich the active partner sham with the passive. And so when they of humour. The chief part is taken up by the common vulgar love tried to begel children they were discovered to be incapable of any (erbs) which robs men of the courage which is the virtue most but a sterile seed. . . .Then as little by little they accustomed those valuable for the life both of peace and war, sets up the disease of

25

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 effeminacy (thileian de noson) in their souls and turns into male- system distinguishing “clean” from “unclean,” “pure” from “. female hybrids (androzynous) those males who should have been impure,” “holy” from “profane,” as anthropologist Mary disciplined in all the practices which make for valour. And hav- Douglas has so brilliantly shown in her classic cross-cultural ing wrought havoc with the years of boyhood and reduced the boy studies on purity and pollution (Douglas 1966, 1970, 1975). to the grade and condition of a girl (erdrnenb) besieged by a Anomalous creatures were abominated as unclean and were for- lover, it inflicts damage on lovers (fous erasfas) also in three most bidden for food: essential respects, their bodies, their souls, and their property. For the mind of the lover (fou paiderasfou) is necessarily set towards I am the Lord your Cod, who have separated you From the peo- his darling (fa paidiko) and its sight is keen for him only, blind to ples. You therefore shall make a distinction behveen the clean all other interests, private and public; his body wastes away beast and the unclean; you shall not make yourselves abominable through desire (epifhymias). particularly if his suit is unsuccess- by beast or bird or anything with which the ground teems, which ful, while his property is diminished by hvo causes, neglect and I have set apart for you to hold unclean. You shall be holy to me; expenditure on his beloved (ton erhenon). As a side growth we for I the Lord am holy, and have separated you from the peoples, have another greater evil of national importance. Cities are deso- that you should be II ,ne [Lev 20:24-261. lated, the best kind of men become scarce, sterility (sfeirkin) and childlessness (agonian) ensure through the deices of these who In this same spirit Torah declared that “a woman shall not imitate men who have no knowledge of husbandry by sowing not wear anything that pert .ins to a man, nor shall a man put on a in the deep soil of the lowland [i.e. coitus with the female] but in woman’s garment, for whoever does these things is an abomina- briny fields and stony and stubborn places, which not only give tion to the Lord your Cod” (Deut 223). no possibility for anything to grow but even destroy the seed This abhorrence of mixing the not-to-be-mixed extended to deposited within them [i.e., anal coitus with young males who animals, seed, and cloth as well. “You shall not let your cattle cannot conceive]. breed with a different kind; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed; nor shall there come upon you a garment of cloth The metaphor of sowing in rocks and stones was used made of hvo kinds of material” (Lev 19: 19; Deut 229). “You already by Plato (LAW 838E). It presumed the widespread shall not plow with an ox and an ass together. You shall not symbolizing of male-female intercourse as “sowing seed” (the wear a mingled stuff, wool and linen together” (Deut male) in fertile soil (the female), ploughing (the male) a field 22:lO-1 I). The distinctiveness of male and that of female was (the female), in all cases of which, of course, the male is the understood as set by God in accord with the established distinc- active penetrater and the female, the passive penetrated. tiveness of all created things. Social order required observance of In another treatise, ONTHE VIRTUES, Philo explains the these distinctions. For males or females to violate these boundaries prohibition of Deuteronomy 235 (‘‘a woman shall not wear and exchange their “God-given” and “nature-determined” roles anything pertaining to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s was to violate Torah and seriously undermine the order to which garment”) as assuring in regard to the male that “no trace, no Torah pointed-the argument that Paul mounted in his letter to merest shadow of the female, should attach to him to spoil his the Romans (I :18-32). masculinity” (VIRT. 18), and that “in such matters the real Throughout the ancient world, for males to adopt the ways man should maintain his masculinity, particularly in his clothes, of females and “effeminize” themselves, to morph from lads into which, as he always wears them by day and night, ought to have ladies, as it were, was looked upon with loathing and excoriat- nothing to suggest unmanliness(anandria)” (VIRT.20). ed with an entire arsenal of labels: thdydrias, IhylyprepLs, These sentiments were in keeping with the Israelite insis- e&the‘lymmenos, gynnis (can also mean castratus), gynaikaner, tence that social order, like the natural order, is maintained by gynaikjas; androgynos, batolos, balp?los, kinaidos, &naidoZogos. respecting the distinctions among things thqt the Creator estab- Latin labels included efferninare, efferninatus. effcrninatio; rnol- lished from the beginning. As Israel conceived the creation, lis; delicata; scortum (cxoletum, prostibulurn); cf. also &midoi trees, plants, and living beings of the water, earth, and air were and pathici (male prostitutes). Entire peoples were put down by created “according to their own kind” and belonged properly to the Greeks as effeminatedfaggots: Lydians, Persians, Medes, the domain of either earth, water or air (Gen I). This feature Phrygians, Amazons, Babylonians, Armenians, Syrians, of creation required that God’s people respect the distinctions Libyans, Carthaginians, Ionians, Athenians, Corinthians, set by God, abhor all anomalies that failed to fit a specific class, Cyprians. Rhodians. Sybarties, Tarentines, even Romans (OR. and never mix those entities that God specifically separated SIB. 5.167)--often because of their “feminine” attire or (Lev I I: Deut 14:3-20). Behind this system of classification because they were perceived to be under the domination of and regulation of life lay a fundamental concern for order in women (e.g. Amazons or Phrygians worshipping Cybele or society and in the cosmos, which in Israel, was spelled out in a Syrians worshipping Dea Syria; cf. also the “female” attire of

26

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 Dionysos and Priapos). For males to make themselves up as 6:9. TERT.PUD. 16; John Chrysostom, ILLUhl. CAT. 1.25); females (thtlynesthai) was to act “against nature” (Diog. Laert. see also Petersen 1989. 6.65; Seneca.. EP. 122.7) and an “illness” (Seneca, CO,WR. One aspect of Greek culture relevant to our topic was the 2. I), as Philo also put it. Fine, soft material (silk, muslin, etc.) emotional and loving relationships that could develop between was “female” attire, as were colored or purple clothing, long a younger “soft” male, a “beloved” (erbrnenos, related to eros, robes, much underclothing; fine footwear, elaborate head cover- “love”) and an older male suitor, the ‘‘lover’’ (erastis) or “lover ings (especially the mitre), and jewelry; showing attention to of the boy” Cpaiderastb). In the male-oriented and male-domi- hair care; being beardless; depilation of body hair; delighting in nated culture of the time, such male-male love relationships cosmetics and perfume, and looking like a female in bodily often were preferred to male-female relations, especially by appearance and gait (wagging of hips, inclining of head); those wishing to avoid procreation in their sexual activity. In unsteady eyes and gaze; high voice, lisping; and luxury and a such love relationships involving young free males, their submis- soft way of life. (On effeminacy in the ancient world,-see Herter sion to senior lovers and their temporary adoption of the passive 1959.) These are elements of prevailing constructs of female “feminine” role was acceptable under the condition that they and male gender, utterly misinformed scientifically, yet univer- felt no erotic desire for their elder partner but submitted only out sally held notions related to the loathing of effeminacy that fes- of love. “The boy,” Socrates emphasized in Xenophon’s tered in the ancient macho-obsessed world and shaped its lan- SYhlPOSIUhl (8.21), “does not share in the man’s pleasure in guage, social relations, and behavioral scripts. intercourse, as a woman does; cold sober, he looks upon the From a cultural perspective, it is quite possible that with other drunk with sexual desire.” “It was clearly unacceptable, rnalakoi Paul was referring to this type of “soft males.” He then after all, Halperin aptly observes (130), for the future rulers of would have been speaking of “effeminate males,” just as Athens to exhibit any eagerness or desire to submit themselves Jerome, Luther, KJV, Lox, and the Spanish and Italian ver- to anyone, especially to their (eventual) peen.” sions consider to have been the case. Such effeminate males, For Israelites, intentional avoidance of the primary com- could have included, beside depilated dandies, entertainers act- mand to be fruitful and multiply (Cen 128) was a grave viola- ing as women, transvestites (in modern parlance), eunuchs tion of Torah and came under severe censure. Philo’s criticism (castrated and hence emasculated = “effeminated”) or even of the lover-beloved relationship (CONTERIP. 59-62, cited males with long hair. According to Paul, males wearing long hair above) included this point as well as other features of this part- were acting contrary to their nature and were behaving as effemi- nership. nates looking like women. Paul makes this point when trying to In a further extension of this cultural construct, rnalakoi explain and justify the differences in attire behveen men and could also designate males, particularly youths, who made their women (1 Cor 1 I :2-16). Surely it is not proper, he insists, for a bodies soft and smooth by shaving and powdering them (as did woman to pray to God with her head uncovered (v. 13). “Does women) and who sold themselves as male prostitutes (BDAG not nature itself teach you that a man wearing his hair long 613). The appearance of malakoi in the 1 Corinthians 6 list brings disgrace upon himself? But a woman wearing her hair along with porno; and moichoi (“immoraVprostitutes” and long brings honor upon herself, since her hair was given to her “adulterers”) would, in fact, favor this sense, as would the men- [by God and nature] as a covering” (w. 14-1 5). For similar tion of prostitution in 6: 15-20. In our modern culture, Robin sentiments see Pseudo-Phocylides 2 12 and Epictetus, DISC. Scroggs points out (1 06). such youths would be “call-boys,” 3.1.25-3 1. young males who have sex with older males for pay, “who The Church Fathers, as Boswell has observed (3391I), walked the thin line behveen passive homosexual activity for did not use rnalakos but rather other terms for “effeminate,” but pleasure and that for pay.” The term “prostitute” implies sex they were certainly preoccupied with effeminacy (for which the for pay, then as now. So if malakoi in 1 Corinithians 6:9 and related noun malakia sometimes was used (Clement of its source was referring to young male prostitutes (this sense Alexandria, PAEDAGOCUS2, chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; for appears to be assumed by the Ziircher version, NMV, and paederastia, see PAED. 2.10.83.5; 2.10.86.2). Effeminates NAB), it may have been the sex-for-pay angle that was were lumped together with prostitutes, violators of graves, mur- deplored. In classical Athens, the hiring of young male prosti- derers, thieves (Gregory Nazianzen. c. 1 -2.2.496f; John tutes by senior males was a known practice, but the passive male Chrysostom, IN IOH. h. 33 [32].3; IN 2 TIhl h. 6.4; IN HEBR. prostitute himself, when he reached his majority, was barred h. 2.4; inscr. ah. I) and were disallowed from the Christian from admission and participation in the public assembly assemblies (Clement of Alexandria, PAED.3.19.3, referring to (ek&%a) because his earlier abandoning of his maleness in play- Deuteronomy 225; cf. Philo, SPEC. LEG. 1.325; VIRT. ing the receptive role impugned his character and honor as a 18-21; Josephus, ANT. 4.301; Clement of Alexandria, male (Halperin: 88-1 12; see also Krenkel). While such a situ- STROM.2.81.3; TERT.SPECT. 23) and with ref. to 1 Cor ation is conceivable, there is an even more likely scenario where

27

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 pay was not a factor but rather unacceptable male passive and who (1) were under the tutelage of older males or were lovers submissive behavior. of these older males and submitted to them sexually, or (2) sub- Here again the male-dominated Greek and Roman cultur- mitted sexually to older males for pay, then the adjacent term al context is important to keep in mind. Male to male relation- arsenokoitai could have denoted the elder male partners. In the ships of friendship were prized over male-female relationships, former case, it could have been the corrupt and corrupting insti- since males were ranked superior to females (by other males, of tution of pederasty that wvas found odious; in the latter case, it course). Females, on the other hand, were viewed as misbegot- could have been the sex-for-pay factor. Already in antiquity, ten or defective males. They were necessary for reproduction paying for something as natural as sexual intercourse degraded and extending the family line and for doing all the shunt work at and shamed the act. What these hvo possibilities have in com- home. But actual friendships of equals or relationships of patrons mon is the fact that both cases would involve males taking on a and clients were normally forged only behveen males. Secondly, perceived female role, submitting themselves to other males as in Greco-Roman circles, education of males among elites (i. e., though they were females, receiving in their anus the penis of the those who set the standards) conventionally involved the separa- penetrating male and thus making “cunts” of themselves. tion of young males (ca. 8 years) from their mothers and home, When in post-biblical times (and only then), the sin of the and their entrustment into the care of older male friends or rela- Sodomites wvas no longer understood to be inhospitality and rape tives of the family who would assume responsibility for the boys’ of strangers (as it was throughout the biblical literature) but wvas formal education. This older male was known in Greek as a thought to be the males of Sodom copulating with other males, paiderastis, a “pederast,” i.e. a “lover/friend” (-erasf) of a “boy” Sodom and ‘“sodomy” became terms for male same-sex sexual (ped-. from pais) whose education (paidcia) was being intercourse as well as anal intercourse, no matter by whom it was advanced. On pederasty see Marrou: 50-62, 479-82; practiced. Neither Genesis 19 nor the Bible in general, of Cartledge; Patzer; Koch-Harnack; Percy; Nissinen: 57-62, in course, says anything of this, but one could imagine the contort- addition to coverage in the works listed above on page 8. ed development of thought: the association of Sodom with male- Such an arrangement could and often did lend itself to male sexual intercourse would have presumed that the males of abuse, including sexual predation on the part of the pederasts Sodom copulated with the visitors (regarding them as human and their subjection of the young male to sexual misuse and males and not sexless angels), and this would have involved anal humiliation. A testament to this development was the transfor- intercourse. Ergo “sodomy” “must” cover both male-male sexu- mation of the Greek myth of Zeus’ love for the beautiful youth al intercourse and anal intercourse. That anal intercourse was Ganymede (reflecting and justifying “natural” and divinely practiced not only by males with males but males with females sanctioned male-male relationships) into the “dirty old man” does not seem to have occurred to those who would find here in account of lecherous Zeus lusting after the dandy Ganymede. Genesis 19 a prohibition of male-with-male sexual relations. This produced the term catamifus in Latin (a Latin formula- (On the invention of the conceptual construct “sodomy” see tion derived from the word “Ganymede” in Greek) for the male Jordan.) passive partner in a male-to-male sexual relationship. On the The blurring or eradication of sexual boundaries, which Zeus-Ganymede myth see Lewis; Dover: 196-97. Catamitus, were thought to have been established by nature, the gods, or in turn, wvas transliterated into English as “catamite.” Though the Cod of Israel, also drew Paul’s censure and condemnation such male relationships were commonplace among the elites, in his letter to the Romans (1 :18-32) where “exchanging nat- the sexual abuse possible in this relationship, as well as the gen- ural relations for unnatural” meant males behaving as females eral disapproval of males behaving as females. was a frequent and females behaving as males. In this dishonorable distortion target of moral scorn. The modern biblical versions translating of nature and violation of God’s will, it was not the sexual inter- rnalakoi with “catamites” (Moffatt, JB) may have had this course per se that was the bone of contention, but rather males development in mind. The Greco-Roman myth, like the institu- pusillanimously acting as passive females or treating other males tion of pederasty itself, could have bee; known in Corinth as females, and females presumptuously acting as aggressive among believers from a Gentile background. Among those of males with other females and the latter cooperating in this trans- Israelite origin this would have been less likely since neither the gression of sacred boundaries. myth nor the educational convention was an element of Israelite culture. Philo may be untypical. He does not employ the noun Arsenokoitai paederustiu, but does use the verb paederusfed (SPEC.2.50; 3.37; HWoM 7: I) and the noun puederudb (DECAL.168; SPEC. The term orseno~o.oit&,the singular of arsenokoitai, is most 3.39; 4.89; CONIEhlPL. 52,61) only in reference to sexual rela- unusual. It is not attested in Greek literature prior to I tionships involving older males with younger males. Corinthians, and it appears only rarely thereafter. In the Bible If rnalakoi in I Corinthians 6:9 designated young males it appears only in I Corinthians 6:9 and I Timothy I :10, in

28

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 both instances in vice lists pre-existing the writings in which they occurrences are even fewer. The components of arseno!~oitk are were included. The list of 1 Timothy (I :9-10) is presented to arsen (“male”) + koitE (“bed,” “marriage-bed;’’ or figurative- exemplify types of unjust persons for whom the law was laid ly, “sexual intercourse” [“go to bed with”]; or sexual emission down (I :8): [occurring in bed]). The gender of the word alone is ambigu- ous, occurring in a declension denoting either males or females. The law is not laid down for the just person [dikaios, v. 91 but for Thus it could denote “females lyinghleeping (around) with the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the males” as well as “males lying” (Boswell: 345, n. 27). It is also unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of uncertain whether anen is to be understood as object or subject: mothers, for manslayers, for immoral persons/prostitutes, for i.e. a male or a person who lies with men (= object) or a male arseno!

29

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 value here, and introduces an activity that is only infrequently points to the effeminate call-boy’’ and arsenof-;oit&, to “the mentioned in ancient sources. It is also difficult to imagine how active partner who keeps the rnalakos as a ‘mistress’ or who Paul could have viewed masturbation as an example of injustice hires him on occasion to satisfy his sexual desires” (108). (see 6:9a). Accordingly, “a very specific dimension of pederasty is being Robin Scroggs (83, l07-08) speculates that the term denounced with these hvo terms,” a disapproval voiced fre- arsenokoit& may have been a Greek translation of the Hebrew quently in the Greco-Roman world on the topic. “Romans for- rnizkab takfir (“lying with a male”), a Rabbinic expression bade pederasty ~[ith]free boys in the Lex Scantinia, pre- found in the Talmudic interpretation of Leviticus 18:22 and Cicero” (BDAG 135) and in general distanced themselves 20:13: “With a male you shall not lie the lyings of a woman” from male same-sex relations and labeled it “the Greek vice.” (Lev 18:22, Scroggs’ literal translation) and “If a male lies Second Temple Israel condemned male same-sex sexual rela- with a male the lyings of a woman, both of them have commit- tions and likewise considered it practiced only by “the other ted an abomination” (Lev. 20:13); see b. Sabbat 17b; b. guys.”deploring it as a typical Gentile vice; see Jub. 7:20-2 1 ; Sukkah 29a; b. Sanhedrin 82a; y. Berakhot 9.50.13~.The 13: 17; 16:5-6; 205-6; T. Naphtali 3:4-5; 4: 1 ; T. Asher Hebrew formulations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20: 13 are obscure 7:l; T. Benjamin 9:l; T. Levi 14:6; 2 Enoch 10:4; 242; 3 and unclear and the virtually equivalent IXX formulations are Macc 25; Sib. Or. 3: 185, 594-600; 5: 166-67; 5386-96; no clearer. Leviticus 1822 IXX has: Kai rneta arsensos ou Let. Aris. 152; Pseudo-Phocylides, 3, 190, 19 I, 2.15; Philo, koirnfth&se”ikoitfn gynaikeian-literally “And with a male you hR.135-36; SPEC. 3.37-39; CONTEMPL. 59-62; Q.GEN shall not lie the woman lyinghed.” And Leviticus 20: I3 LXX 4.37; Jos., AG,Ap. 2.37.273-75. has: Kai hos an koirnfthse”inieta arsenos koitfn gynaikos-liter- The corruption of young boys by predatory older males ally, “And whoever lies with a male the lyinhed of a came under heavy censure throughout the ancient world. woman. . . .” In neither the Hebrew nor the Greek is it clear Occasion for this vice was given in the cultural preference for what exactly is forbidden: males lying with other males as they male-male relations in general and in the operation of pederasb would with women so as to engage in some form of sexual inter- as an educational arrangement. The deviant aspect of pederasty course (“lyings of a woman” suggesting sexual intercourse), or, was not the relationship as such, but the “effeminizing” of the more specifically, males assuming the female passive role when younger males and their abuse by their senior tutorsAovers. In lying sexually with other males (“lyings of a woman” suggesting this relationship, older, established powerful males could and the passive, receptive role). As a pair, rnalakoi and arsenokoitai, did abuse their younger, weaker, and socially inferior male part- Scroggs suggests, could have designated the passive and active ners. Thus we find the warning issued by an Israelite writer, partners respectively in male with male sexual intercourse. In “Guard the youthful prime of life of a comely boy, because this case, the rnalakoi would certainly have been adolescent many rage for intercourse with a madmale” (Pseudo- males who had not yet grown beards, since “male prostitution.” Phocylides, line 215 [I century BCE-I century CE]). at least as we know from classical Athens, “was largely the Discussing the Vices of an evil man, Philo observes that in province of those below the age of majority” (Halperin: 90). regard to his tongue, belly, and genitals (la gennftika), This pairing of the hvo terms, however, is unique, occurring nowhere else in the entire Bible, and thus is in no way a stan- He misuses them for abominable lusts and forms of intercourse dard expression. Moreover, the Rabbinic sources are much later forbidden by all laws. He not only attacks in his fury the mar- than Paul, and probative evidence of any actual connection of riage-beds of others, but even plays the pederast (paiderastbn) arsenokoit& with an earlier Hebrew term or with the hvo texts and forces the male type of nature to debase and convert itself into of Leviticus has not been presented. Of the three NT texts the feminine form, just to indulge a polluted and accursed passion claimed to refer to male-with-male sexual relations (Rom [SPECIAL h\VS 2.14.501. 1 :18-32, 1 Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1 :1O);none refers explicitly to, or quotes, Leviticus 18:22 or 20: 13. His comment on the residents of Sodom in Abraham’s

Frederick Danker, lexicographer non pareil, in the BDAG time (ON ~RAHA~I135-36, cited above on page 9) ~ entry on arsenokoitb. also considers the component parts of the expressed similar notions. The description reflects pagan prac- term and mentions as analogous a word occurring in extra-bib- tices of Philo’s own time, which he imagined to have typified the lical Greek, rnftrokoitb, meaning “one who has intercourse with residents of Sodom in Genesis 19, where none of these partic- his mother (rne^t?r)” (BDAG 135). He thus renders ulars is mentioned. arsenokoit& “a male who engages in sexual activity w[ith] a Emasculation and effeminization of males given to the pers[on] of his own sex. pederast . . . of one who assumes the “female disease” and the complicity of the active partners in this dominant role in same-sex activity” (BDAG 135). This coin- vice are also denounced even more extensively by Philo in his com- cides with Scroggs’s view that in 1 Corinthians 6:9 “rnalakos mentary on various violations of the sixth commandment of the

30

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 Decalogue and the obligation to procreate: 41. Those of them who by wvay of heightening still further their 37. Much graver than the above [certain tactics used for avoiding youthful beauty have desired to be completely changed into conception in sexual intercourse and “ploughing the hard and women and gone on to mutilate their genital organs (fagennCfi- stony ground,” 32-36] is another evil, which has ramped its Xvay ka), are clad in purple like signal benefactors of their native lands, and march in front escorted by a bodyguard, attracting the into the cities, namely pederasty/love of boys ((0 paiderasfein). [Philo appears to be resuming his interpretation of Leviticus 18 attention of those who meet them. (SPECIALLAWS 3.7.374 I. modified). begun in 3.3.12, so that these words would constitute his com- LCL ment on Leviticus I8:22 and 20: 13.1 In the former days the very mention of it was a great disgrace, but now it is a matter of boast- Philo’s “androgynes” (manwoman hybrids) were decided- ing not only to the active but to the passive partners who habitu- ly not homosexuals (as that term is understood today) but were imagined as males with both male and female sexual character- ate themselves to endure the disease of effemination [noson fh6leian--literalIy, the “female disease”], let both body and soul istics. The disgrace in which they were involved for Philo lay run to waste, and leave no ember of their male sex-nature to. not in same-sex coitus, but in.the partners’ dishonoring of male- smoulder. Mark how conspicuously they braid and adorn the hair ness, the wvastijg of the senior partner’s power to procreate, and of their heads, and how they scrub and paint their faces withcos- the passive parher’s assuming the “female disease” and adopt- metics and pigments and the like, and smother themselves with ing the ways of women.-The prohibition of adultery, on which fragrant unguents. For of all such embellishmenk, used by all this discussion is a cpmmentary, forbids the violation of a mar- who deck themselves out to wear a comely appearance, fragrance ried male’s honor by the stealinghontrolling of his wife. Philo’s is the most seductive. In fact, the transformation of the male concern with maintaining the honor of malehood by eschewing nature to the female is practiced by them as an art and does not effeminacy is consistent with the Decalogue’s protection of male raise a blush. honor by prohibiting the theft of his chief property. It may well be that Paul shared this view of his compatriot, Philo, and that a perceived violation of the gender boundaries 38. These persons are rightly judged worthy of death by those understood set and nature earned who obey the law, which ordains that the man-’voman hybrid (fon as by God for both rnalakoi androgynon) who debases the sterling coin of nature should per- and arsenokoifai their place in the list cited by Paul. In this view, both passive and active partners in male-with-male sexual inter- ish unavenged, suffered not to live for a day or even an hour, as a a disgrace to himself, his house, his native land and the whole action colluded in a degradation of male virtue and male honor human race. and thereby brought shame on all manly males. The submissive partnerivas’a passive patsy and receptive like a female. The active partner cooperated in the dishonoring of the passive male and in 39.’And the lover (ho de paiderasf&) of such may be assured that many instances even subjected the youth to further modes phys- he is subject to the same penalty. He pursues an unnatural pleas- of ure and does his best to render cities desolate and uninhabited by ical abuse, economic subservience, insult, and social shaming. In destroyin&asting the means of procreation [i.e. his semen]. this kind of liaison, the senior male was usually married to a woman and accustomed to regular coitus with women. In no case Furthermore he sees no harm in becoming a tutor and instructor in the grievous vices of unmanliness and effeminacy (anandrias did he restrict himself to only male-male coitus. Thus even if is taken as a reference to such senior males, they kai rnalakias) by prolonging the bloom of the young and emascu- arsenokoifui hardly fit the definition of “homosexual” as understood today lating (ek$dynGn) the flolver of their prime. which should right- (males oriented and engaging exclusively other males in ly be trained to strength and robustness. Finally like a bad hus- to with bandman he lets the deep-soiled and fruitful fields lie sterile, by sexual relations). taking steps to keep them from bearing, while he spends his If arsenokoitai denoted not senior males who loved youths, but older males who preyed sexually on and abused young labour night and day on soil from which no growth at all can be expected. males, then it would be a synonym of the more common word paidophfhoros, “corrupter of boys/children” (see TESTAMENT OF LEW 1; BARN. 10:6). The related verb paidophfhor- 40. The reason is, I think, to be found in the prizes awarded in 17:l “to corrupt boys/children,” appears in Christian lists of many nations to licentiousness and effeminacy (malab). ein, prohibited activities in and BARNABAS cf. Certainly you may see these man-wvoman hybrids (androgynous) DIDACHE2:2 19:4; also Another list vices characterizing “the way continually strutting about through the thick of the market, head- 10:6. of of death” (DIDACHE 5: 1-2) includes “corrupters of God’s crea- ing the processions at the feasts, appointed to serve as unholy tures” plasrnafos fheou), a formulation also included ministers of holy things, leading the mysteries and initiations and bhfhoreis in a similar list of vices characterizing “the wvay of the Black celebrating the rites of Demeter. One” [Satan] in the LETTER OF BARNABAS2O:l-2. The

31

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 combination of arsenokoitai with rnalakoi makes this conceiv- are the original Greek words: “soft males” and “males who lie able in the case of 1 Corinthians 6:9 (contrast 1 Timothy 1 :10, with males.” where only arsenoikoitai occurs). Again, however, we are deal- ing only with possibilities on top of unclarities. The factor of literary context Renderings of rnalakoi and arsenokoitai by a single expres- sion such as “homosexuals” (RSV 1946), or “sexual perverts” The terms are part of a traditional Israelite pre-Pauline list (Revised English Bible 1989), or “homosexual perverts” of persons not inheriting the kingdom of God. Some of the per- (TEV 1966) or “men guilty of unnatural crime” (Weyrnouth sons and their actions are sexual in nature (“adulterers,” possi- NT 1943) are, in any case, “lexically unacceptable” (BDAG bly pornoi, if it is taken as meaning “prostitutes” or “males 135). apart, I would add, from their incorrectness in other engaging in incest” rather than “idolators” or merely “immoral respects. Along with the concepts of “heterosexuality” and persons”), but not the majority of the remaining terms (“idol- “bisexuality,” the concept of “homosexua1ity”is a modern con- aters, ,. “greedy,” “drunkards,” “revilers,” “robbers”). struct, as is the notion of “perversion” as currently defined. All Moreover, aside from .the term pornoi, which is mentioned first these concepts are modern in their conceit and formulation. and:hence given pride of place, no term is singled out as espe- They are absent from the world of the Bible and alien to its ciall; pernicious; all have equal weight. The list in its totality thought, which knows nothing of “sexual identity” or “sexual ori- does not have a sexual focus. No stress is given to the terms entation” and which rather attends to specific persons voluntarily rnalal

32

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 The meaning of the terms understanding of Genesis 19 and its cultural context. Translations of malakoi such as “sensual” (Goodspeed), The great disparity among Bible translations and commen- or “depraved” (BJ), or “self-indulgent” (NJB 1985) have the taries indicates that there has been and remains no consensus virtue of a vagueness that parallels the vagueness of “soft.” concerning the meaning of these terms, whether they involve They could have a sexual implication, but not necessarily so. sexual matters, let alone “homosexual” or same-sex activity, Consequently, these translations make the verses irrelevant to what activity or social relations the terms might imply, and what the question of whether 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 has a bearing on might qualify these activities or relations as immoral. While male-to-male sexual relations or on the modern issue of homo- many questions must remain open for lack of probative evi- sexuality, except to imply a negative answer to both questions. dence, a few things are clear and certain. The KJV rendition of arsenokoitai as “abusers of thern- Neither malakoi nor arseno~oitaican be translated with selves with mankind” does not indicate the type or domain of “homosexuals,” a term of modern coinage, shaped.by modern the self-abuse. Though “self-abuse” became a designation for conceptions of gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation masturbation in the Victorian ,period; it is not likely implied (against the RSV 1946, TEV 1976, NEB 1971, NAB). here, given the accompanying words, “with mankind.” A social The concept of “sexual orientation” and its distinction from activity, in other words, is implied-unless the translators “sexual practice” also are foreign to the ancient world and alien regarded male to male sexual intercourse as a form of mutual to its prevailing mentality. The modern translation “invertidos” masturbation. Its pairing with “effeminate” probably points to a (Nueva Biblica Espanola) is wrong for the same reason; the sexual implication of arsenokoitai. The only thing certain is that concept of sexual inversion is a modern one unknown in the the translating expression emphasizes abuse as the immoral ancient world. Versions mentioning “perversion” (NEB) or aspect of this term. “pervert(s)” (RSV 197 I, TEV, Rev. EB) are likewise wrong on this score. All these translations are reflections of modern The culturalfromework psychological concepts anachronistically attributed to Paul and h‘IS source. The specific connotations of rnalakoi and arsenokoifai were Also incorrect are all translations that collapse the hvo determined by the knowledge, perspectives, concepts, values, terms malakoi and arsenokooitai into one modern expression norms, practices and institutions of the Creco-Roman world, such “men guilty of unnatural crime” OVeymouth), “homosex- Hellenistic Israel, and the fledgling Jesus movement. This cul- uals” (RSV 1946), “homosexual perversion” (NEB 1961), tural framework included a patriarchal, male-oriented and male- “sexual perverts” (RSV I97 I), or “homosexual perverts” dominated society; the valorization of male-male relationships CTEV). over male-female relationships (except for child production); The choice of “sodomites” for arsenol

33

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 I who would view and translate malakoi and arsenokoitai in the male partners who were complicit in these acts of male humilia- light of Rom I :18-32. Also damaging to this notion is the fact tion or sex for pay and of older males corrupting tender youth. that other terms of the list involve actions that are not “unnatu- While none of these options can be proved as envisioned ral” but all too natural and typical of the human condition by Paul, each is at least lexically possible and contextually plau- (immorality, idolatry, adultery, theft, greed, drunkenness, revil- sible. With such meanings, this pair of terms would be seman- ing). Malakoi and arsenokoitai may imply actions that would tically compatible with the other terms of the list, each of which have been viewed by some in Paul’s world as “unnatural,” but denotes some form of excess (greed, drunkenness) or type of Paul does not make that case here and it is best to avoid lan- conduct condemned by Israel’s God or the mos maiorum, the guage suggesting that he does. customs of the ancestors (immorality, idolatry, adultery, theft, Closer still to Paul’s cultural world and to what he does revilind. With these meanings they would also fit the context of say in I Corinthians are the versions that render rnalakoi as 6: 1-1 1 and join the other terms listed in w 9-10 as indicating “effeminate(s)” (Vulgate, KW, Luther, - La Biblia, La Sacra types of unjusdunrighteous persons excluded from the kingdom Bibbia) or “Lustknaben” (Ziircher), “catamites”- (Moffatt, of God. This’possibility is also compatible with what is known JB1966), or “boy/male prostitutes” (NAB, NRSV), and about sexual relationships, sexual values, and sexual norms in arsenokoitai as “males sleeping with males” (Vulgate), or “cor- Paul’s period. It must be acknowledged, however, that these are rupters of boys” (Luther, Ziircher), and possibly “(male) only possibilities that are more likely than other alternatives. abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV).While not techni- The available evidence does not allow a definitive conclusion or cal Greek terms for males engaged sexually with other males a dernier mot. and while not commonly employed, these words could be point- In the ancient world of the Bible, in contrast to the pres- ing to various male-to-male sexual relations that in Paul’s time ent, no distinction was drawn between personal sexual “orienta- were practiced by the Greeks, tolerated with exasperation by the tion,” on the one hand, and behavior on the other. Persons were Romans, and denounced by the House of Israel as typical of classified according to their origin (blood line and locality), Gentile degeneracy and moral depravity. The problem with the looks, and behavior-external factors, not internal states- behavior and/or the relations is that in some way they were seen since only external features were visible and verifiable. God to violate the gender boundaries set by nature (and God), with alone could look inside and know the heart. The terms in the males assuming the passive role and inferior position of females, lists cited in I Corinthians and elsewhere in the NT and secu- and their male partners being complicit in this distortion of lar documents refer, not to persons of a particular condition, i.e. maleness and masculine honor. In regard to the institution of the “condition” of adultery, theft, greed, etc., but to persons pederasty, while the relationship of older males to younger boys engaging in specific violent, abusive, immoderate, socially once had a useful educational function, it eventually became an destructive, or religiously proscribed acts. Paul and his ancient occasion for abuse, commercialization, and corruption. Older contemporaries regarded the persons and implied actions enu- men forced themselves on young boys, abusing them physically, merated in the lists bf 1 Corinthians 5 and 6 as agents capable using them as play things (Lustknaben) and, in some cases of choosing behveen moral and immoral modes of behavior, and enticing them to literally peddle their asses for sex and sesterces. their preferences, whether good or evil, as free and deliberate Dandified and perfumed youth, on the other hand, switched choices. Desire and choice were the operative forces, not “ori- from active to passive, shaved and powdered their bodies, entation.” assumed the posture and role of receptive, soft females, sold A passage of the 1-2 century EPISTLEOF BARNABAS their butts to the highest bidders, and for the sake of money and could relate to I Corinthians 6:9 and in any case offers a sober- the protection of powerful patrons played the role of the passive ing eye-opener concerning the state of knowledge about sexual lover (like Ganymede to Zeus) as long as necessity demanded, matters in Paul’s age. The pericope, BARN. 10:M. presents occasion permitted, and time allowed. reasons for the food prohibitions in Leviticus and for the classi- If the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai had a sexual impli- fication of certain animals as “unclean:” cation for Paul and his source, it is possible that one of the above scenarios lay behind this sexual connotation. Malukoi But furthermore, he [Moses] says [Lev I I:5;cf. Deut 14:7]. could have denoted “effeminate males.” Or, if rnalakoi and “You shall not eat the hare.” Why? arsenokoitai formed a pair of words indicating some kind of sex- ual relationship and behavior, maIakoi could have designated Do not, he means, be a corrupter of boys [poidophfboros] or like youth playing the passive role of females in male to male sexual such people, because the hare grows a new anus every year, and relations of beloved and lover. or youth playing the passive role their number is proportionate to its years [cf. Aelianus, DE of females in male to male sex-for-pay transactions. Arsenolcoitai, NATURA ANIMALIUhl I .25; Clement of Alexandria, in turn, could have denoted the dominant, and often abusive, PAEDACOGUS 2.10.63-84, etc.].

34

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 But “neither shall you eat the hyena” [not in Lev or OT, but persons do not practice justice, they do not act in love toward added by the author of Barnabas]. their fellows, and they do not contribute to the building up of the communal Body of Christ. Do not, he means, be an adulterer or corrupter (phthoreus) or like such people. \Ry? Because this animal changes its sex every Some Broader Hermeneutical Observa- year, and is at one time male, at another, female. tions--Exegetical and Hermeneutical Principles and Implications But he also rightly abhorred the weasel [Lev. 1129; cf. Aelianus, DE ANN. 2.551. The body of the first letter to the Corinthians opens with Paul’s stress on “Christ crucified: and the paradoxical power of Do not, he means, be like those males who, we learn, because of the gospel (1 :18-3 I). It closes with a resounding affirmation of their uncleanness, do what is forbidden with their mouth; and do the resurrection of Christ and of,all believers (1 5: 1-58). not associate with unclean women who do what is forbidden with Behveen opening and close. more attention is given to sexual their mouth; for this animal conceives through the mouth. issues than in any. other NT writing. This indicates that, for Paul, crucifion and resurrection set the hermeneutical frame- In the famous and reylarly used Loeb Classical Library work within which sexual issues are to be viewed and treated. series, the English translation of the Greek text of Barnabas is Those who today claim to stand within the Pauline tradition abruptly interrupted at this point and Latin is substituted for can be expected to follow Paul’s lead. If this present paper were English-apparently to avoid offending the sensibilities of its a study of Paul’s view on sexuality in general, this is precisely vulnerable readers. It is, however, this “real dirty stuff” that the direction I would have taken. I would have shown how reveals not only the ignorance of the ancients but also the prud- Paul’s insistence on the unity and inclusiveness of the believing ishness of modern scholars. This bizarre explanation offered in community as the Body of Christ, his concern with the consoli- BARNABAS is repeated almost verbatim by Clement of dation of that body through love and putting the brother or sis- Alexandria (t ca. 2 15 CE) in his PAEDACOGUS(2.10). ter before self, his interweaving of Christ’s personal body (cru- If arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9 is seen to denote older cified and resurrected), Christ’s social body, the church, and males sexually corrupting young boys, then this passage of Christ’s eucharistic body; and his emphasis on the creating and BARNAEIASillustrates the theological and ethical reasoning recreating action of God bringing a new eschatological, physi- underlying the early Christian censure of this practice. From a cal and social reality into existence all established a context for hermeneutical perspective, the text illustrates the need for great comprehending his teaching on sexual relations and responsibil- caution in the use of any biblical argument based on “what is ities. natural” or “what nature teaches.” As our knowledge of nature The present essay, however, is more narrow in scope and has changed drastically since ancient time, so must our ethical has focused on a subordinate issue and a passage, 1 reasoning once based on ‘‘what nature teaches.” This text of Corinthians 6:9-i 0, that has been claimed to speak of and con- BARNABASalso illustrates how weak and arbitrary ethical rules demn “homosexuals” and “homosexuality.” The conclusion of are that are based on an allegorical mode of interpretation. the study is that this claim is unsubstantiated, erroneous and Paul’s concern in citing the list in which these terms are methodologically misguided. Several points lead to this conclu- contained was to illustrate modes of unjust behavior typical of sion. Gentile unbelievers and to proscribe such behavior as inimical 1. Accurate translation and interpretation requires that to the moral and social integrity of the believing community and words, phrases, and sentences be understood and interpreted incompatible with its holiness. These are behaviors that do not always with reference to their literary, historical, social and cul- exhibit but rather inhibit love-a focus on and concern for oth- tural context(s). Any translation or interpretation ignoring this ers of one’s primary group, like the love one has towards one’s principle of contextuality will inevitably misrepresent and distort family (8:l; 13:1-13). In I Corinthians, it is this love serving the meaning of the original text. This is the hermeneutical prin- to maintain and build up the unity of the community, the body ciple ofcontcrtual interpretation. Many translations or interpreta- of Christ, that is Paul’s \+a1 concern. The list in 6:9-10 enu- tions of malakoi and arsenokoitai violate this principle of contex- merates the types of persons who are unjust/unrighteous. tual interpretation, as indicated above. Leland White, recently Within the argument that Paul is making here, the persons of deceased co-editor of BIBLICALTHEOLOGY BULLETIN, made this list illustrate types of such unjust/unrighteous persons who, the same point in this journal several years ago in his study like believers who put themselves before the needs of the group, focused on Romans I, Does fie Bible Speak about Cays or drag their fellow believers into pagan courts of law and ignore Same-Ser Orientation? (I 995). His answer in the negative the communal well-being of the Corinthian faithful. The listed points out the several differences in perspectives and values dis-

35

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 tinguishing ancient from modern conceptual frameworks. differ- difference behveen ancient and modern “mentalities” conce ences that disallow any use of the Bible as hot off the divine ing sexual relations and same-sex sexual relations, \Volfga press. His cogent study of 200 I examines the same biblical text Stegemann makes the same point (Stegemann 1993a, 1991 of Romans 1 in even further detail. 1998a, 1998b). “The idea of the homosexual person as c 2. Since rnalakoi and arsenokoitai are not technical or who is exclusively or predominantly attracted to members of recurrent terms for same-sex sexual relations, it is not certain same sex,” William Countryman has correctly stressed (I I that they relate in any way to the issue of same-sex sexual rela- “appears to have been unknown to them [i.e. ancient Gre tions then or now. The adjective rnalakos, meaning “soft,” and Romans]. Assuming that “human beings are attracted s could denote various features of things or persons depending on ually both to their own and the opposite sex.” these ancier context, only some of which had sexual implications. In its only including Paul and his contemporaries, he observes, “lac1 other NT occurrence, it meant “soft” (modifying clothing) with even a behavior-based category for people who showed a fia no sexual overtones whatsoever. The noun arsenokoit& is so preference for partners of the same sex.” Marti Nissinen (1 I, rarely attested that a precise meaning (as indicated by usage) is similarly insists. that the “modern concept of ‘homosexuali impossible to determine, though the components of the word should by no means be read into Paul’s text, nor can we assu and its combination with rnalakoi could suggest possibilities that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 6:9 ‘condemn all homos with sexual implications. ual relations’ in all times and places and ways.’ So also Peters 3. Certain renditions of malakoi and arsenokoitai are lin- 1986: The meanings of the words are too vague to justify t guistically possible and culturally plausible, but not exegetically claim, and Paul’s words should not be used for generalizatid probative beyond the shadow of doubt. that go beyond his experience and world.” Indeed, to claim tl In the light of Paul’s male-dominated, male-oriented, malakoi and arsenokoitai were “homosexuals” would be machismo-driven culture, it is possible but not certain that anachronistic as claiming that mefhysoi (1 Cor 6:10) wvt malakoi and arsenokoitai denoted effeminate and domineering “alcoholics” or “addicts,” or that loidoroi (I Cor 6: 10) \vd male partners respectively in abusive or commercialized sexual “trash talkers,” or that pkonektai (I Cor 6: 10) were rapacia relationships. This meaning, however, is a supposition based on “capitalists.” It would be as ethnocentric as claiming that what is knoivn about the culture of Paul’s world and on seman- their day Jesus was viewed as an “extrovert” or Paul as a “1 tic possibilities (but not certainties) of the terms themselves. ertarian” or “lefhing progressive.” It would be like imagini The herrneneutical significance of this uncertainty is the that ancient Mediterraneans thought and behaved like rnidc severe limits it sets on the use that can be made of these terms class Americans. Translating malakoi and arsenokoitai IVI today for theological or ethical purposes. The relevant “homosexuals” is as anachronistic and ethnocentric as claim] hermeneutical principle governing the use of ancient texts in that Paul and the biblical authors were aware of X and Y ch modern settings states that where meanings of terms are unclear mosomes, sexual orientation, and HN. and implications of terms uncertain in the original text, great 4. Whatever meanings are accepted for these terms tod caution is required in the use of these terms in theological or eth- an attempt to use them today for theological and ethical purpa ical reasoning. No ethical rules can be based on unclear con- faces further hermeneutical constraints posed by their herd cepts. Theological doctrines and ethical rules cannot be based context and rhetorical function. The fact that rnalakoi a on exegetical suppositions and conflicting modern translations. arsenokoitai are part of a list used by Paul to illustq Any attempt to do so leads only to unclarity concerning the unjust/unrighteous persons in a context dealing with injustice rules themselves, confusion concerning the rationale behind Cor 6: 1-1 I) has several hermeneutical implications. their formulation, and inconsistency in their enforcement. If an attempt is made to find theological and ethical s Accordingly, the lexica! ambiguity and semantic uncertainty of nificance in this text for today’s situation, then all the terms the terms malakoi and arsenoJtoifaijn 1 Corinthians 6:9 advise 6:9-10 must be weighted equally today, as they were by Pa extreme caution regarding the theological and ethical use of this There can be no singling out of rnalakoi and arsenokoitai as passage today. greater importance or gravity and no ignoring the other typed What is certain is that neither term can accurately be persons censured by Paul. If it is held today that malakoi a translated “homosexuals,” and neither word relates to the phe- arsenokoitai are excluded today from the kingdom of God a nomenon of homosexuality as currently defined and under- from the Church “because the Bible demands it” (with refi stood. Claims that this passage and these terms speak to the ence to these verses), then this censure must be applied to all ti issue of “homosexuality” as defined and understood today are vices of 69-I 0. One must then also exclude from the kingda erroneous, because neither Paul nor any other biblical author- of God today all who are immoral (or prostitutes or engaged nor any author at all from antiquity-had any term for, or con- incestual relationships), all idolaters, adulterers, thieves, gree cept of, what is defined today as a “homosexual.” Stressing the persons, drunkards, revilers, and robbers. And vice versa: t

36

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 manner in which these other vices are evaluated in a contempo- commentators or church officials or self-appointed posses of the rary ethic will, for the sake of consistency, apply to malakoi and morality squad have as their pet peeve or phobia. It may be that arsenokoitai as well. If greed or drunkenness or reviling are no a thorough study of this subject must include an examination of longer viewed as activities preventing inheritance of the king- such phobias and peeves in order to ascertain why the issue of dom of God, then the same will have to be true of the actions of homosexuality has become such a focus of attention in the first malakoi and arsenokoitai, whatever they may be. place and why gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons This hermeneutical principle of consistency applies, by the are so high today on many peoples’ phobia and hate lists. way, to the theological and ethical treatment of other supposedly If 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is explored for ethical signifi- relevant texts such as Leviticus 18 (degrees of incest, intercourse cance today, all terms of the list must be related today to the during menstruation, adultery, males “lying with males the lyings issue of justicdinjusfice, as they- were by Paul. Being rnalakoi of females,” bestiality, idolatry) and Leviticus 20 (child sacrifice, and arsenokoitai. like being any other of the persons listed, will engaging in magic, cursing parents, incest, males lying with be viewed as wrong today for the same reason this was declared males the lyings of females, bestiality, intercourse during men- wrong by Paul-because of the injustice in which these persons, struation, distinction of clean and unclean animals and food), like all the perspns listed, were involved. This hermeneutical Romans 1 (idolatry, gender role reversal, unholy and dishonor- principle of interpretive fidelity (fidelity to the point and rhetor- able conduct, and the hventy-one vices of l:29-31), and 1 ical thrust of the original aygument) also is often violated in the Timothy (lawless and disobedient persons, ungodly and sinners, rush for ethical applica!ion.‘If it had been observed in the hunt unholy and profane persons, patricides and matricides, prosti- for homosexuals, persons wishing to apply this text today would tutes, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and false teachers). be asking how modern-day rnalakoi and arsenokoitai are acting In actuality, in the past 2,000 years this hermeneutical unjustly. principle concerning totality and consistency has enjoyed only 5. Another hermeneutical constraint on the contemporary occasional enforcement. For the most part, subjectivity and use of this text involves historical, social and cultural dirferences selectivity have prevailed in how the Bible has been applied eth- separating Paul’s society and cultural horizons from those of the ically. The vices mentioned in this passage were differently modern, post-Enlightenment, western, industrialized world of weighted by different readers in different situations. Some vices most contemporary Bible readers. These differences in con- were considered more serious than others. Some were catego- texts, conceptual constructs, and horizons of meaning must be rized as “mortal” sins (incest, idolatry), others as “venial” acknowledged and allowed to guide any theological and ethical (theft, revilingl. Adultery just a generation ago was grounds for use of the Bible today. Failure to do so results in reading into exclusion from Holy Communion and legal grounds for divorce. the text what should be derived from the text, eisegesis instead This is no longer the case today in 2003 when excommunica- of exegesis, and imposition of modern concepts, constructs, and tion no longer “works,” no fault divorce has become a reality, vocabulary instead of exposition of ancient ones. The ultimate and divorce no longer disqualifies from the holy ministry. consequence is a distorted and misleading reading of the text, Curiously and inconsistently, being malakoi and arsenokoitai- an abuse rather than sound use of the Bible for theological and anachronistically understood as referring to “homosexuals” ethical purpose. (male and female) who engage in same-sex sexual relations-is The specific modes, expressions, and implications of male- allowed to disqualify from ministry in several modern denomi- male sexual relations and their possible ethical evaluation in 1 nations, while divorce, which the Lord himself prohibited Corinthians or elsewhere in the Bible in general are conditioned (Mark 10:2-12), raises nary an eyebrow, let alone protest. by their own historical, social, cultural and religious contexts. On the other hand, the ancient revulsion against emas- These contextual factors may be, and in most cases are, different culation, effeminacy, and males assuming, or forced into, the from those shaping current understanding and evaluation of the passive role of females is far less pervasive today. The effemi- nature and practice of homosexuality. As in all cases where the nization of males that was seen by the biblical communities as a Bible is used as a norm for modern ethical reflection, these differ- violation of nature and God’s will is no longer an issue of moral ences must be taken seriously. Failure to do so has resulted and will or legal consequence-at least in cultures of the modern west- continue to result in a distorted anachronistic and ethnocentric ern hemisphere. Furthermore, rare are the religious bodies reading of biblical texts, a disregard and denial of the historicity of today that exclude thieves or greedy persons, or drunkards or the word of God and the doctrine of the incarnation, and a mess revilers or robbers or even adulterers or prostitutes, or idolaters of rules rendered implausible and impracticable because isolated from the kingdom of God and the precincts of the sanctuary. By from their original contexts of meaning. what criterion, then, are exceptions made in regard to malakoi The difference in social structures and cultural horizons and arsenokoitai? The only criterion that seems to be evident in behveen Paul’s world and the present makes it difficult, if not practice is that of personal dislike or fear-what translators or impossible, to directly apply Paul’s exhortation and mode of

37

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 argumentation in I Corinthians 5-6 to today’s scene in the Put in more general terms, modern use of, and appep USA. This is not only due to the unclarity of certain of Paul’s to, biblical ethical rules (prescriptions and proscriptions) today terms, like rnalakooi and arsenofcoifai or pornos, porn? and will have little plausibility or persuasive power if modern read porneia. It is also because the social and cultural premises ers do not also accept the premises and perceptions and script informing Paul’s thought are no longer those of most underlying these ancient injunctions. This is a hermeneutica Americans. Excommunication (I Cor 51-13) no longer is observation that pertains to the use today of any verse or pa% effective and no longer practiced as an ecclesial disciplinary tac- sage of Scripture for ethical or theological purpose. On the tic because the social premise on which it was based is no longer other hand, principles drawn from biblical passages can better shared by today’s post-Enlightenment. western, industrialized weather the passage from antiquity to the present (e. g., suck world. A theory of rugged individualism, personal independ- principles as; “that act is forbidden that is inconsistent with the ence, and appeal to a putative “interiorized” sense of morality gospel as proclaimed by Jesus and the NT authors”; or “that or “conscience” has today replaced the group orientation, act is allowed that builds up the body of Christ”). dyadic personality, and group-centered morality tpical of Jesus’ 6. Today we,study the biological, psychological, and psy- and Paul’s world. Consequently, excluding persons from the chosomatic dimensions of sexuality and homosexuality, dimen- community does not make sense and does not “work,” and so it sions unimagined or differently conceived by Paul and his con- is no longer practiced in the western Church. Or it is effective temporaries. We speak of “Xand “Y” chromosomes and only in those situations or cultures (like those of the speculate about genes as determinative of gender and orienta- Mediterranean or Middle East or traditional face-to-face tion-factors as alien to Paul and Jesus as the computer and groups) where the group orientation of Paul’s culture and ethos saran wrap. Today some researchers and church bodies accept is still in evidence. the distinction behveen sexual orientation and sexual conduct, a On the other hand, nothing in 1 Corinthians, or for that distinction also unknown to Paul and the ancients. Some today matter in any other biblical writing, speaks directly of the bio- regard a homosexual orientation, like a heterosexual or bisemal logical or psychological condition of homosexuality or homosex- orientation, as something conveyed in the genes and transmitted ual “orientation” as this is understood today and as it concerns by nature and/or given by God. In this case, it is not one’s sex- believing Christian gay persons intent on worshipping and serv- ual “orientation” that is “immoral” but the acting out of that ing God. supposedly God-given orientation. This is the official position This interpretive hermeneutical problem applies to all of of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which there- 1 Corinthians 5:1-6:20, all of 1 Corinthians, and all of the fore requires abstention from sexual intercourse on the part of Bible in general. Paul’s ethical requirements and proscriptions, all ordained clergy with an admitted homosexual orientation. In like those throughout the NT, presume a constellation of specif- theory, church officials and congregations are eager to have ic social-economic arrangements, religious perspectives, and homosexuals declare their orientation and abstain from sexual cultural scripts. The plausibility and persuasive power of these activity. In actuality, church practice emulates that of the mili- ethical injunctions required that his hearers shared this complex tary and whispers “don’t ask, don’t tell.” The position of the of arrangements and scripts. The meaning of rnalakoi and ELCA concerning the sexual activity of lay homosexuals is less arsenokoitai, the cultural and social practices Paul assumed clear and perhaps for this reason less enforced. Other these terms to have reflected, and the nature and rhetorical Protestant bodies seem to swim in similar types of murky theo- thrust of Paul’s exhortation were all fundamentally shaped by logical and ethical soup. The official Roman Catholic position the cultural world Paul inhabited. that homosexuals are in their natures “disordered” is a position In regard to the theological and ethical use of this text, informed more by natural law theory than by the Bible. The this means that the passage and Paul’s argument will be plausi- Letter fo the Bishops ofthe Caholic Church on the Pastorul Care ble and persuasive only in those situajons today where similar of Homosexual Persons issued by the Congregation for the social and cultural conditions prevail. This will be in very few Doctrine of the Faith on October 3 1, 1986-the Festival of the places around the modern world. It will certainly not be the case Reformation (!)-states that “[a]lthough the particular inclina- in the United States and modern industrialized and democra- tion of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less tized cultures in general. From this vantage point also, the text strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus will have little relevance for US religious denominations exam- the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” ining the issue of homosexuality and its theological and ethical (83). The text of the Letter is printed in full in Gramick & ramifications. Theological doctrines and ethical rules cannot be Furey: 1-10; the remainder of the volume contains informative based on biblical texts whose rationales and plausibility are analyses and critiques. A merit of this position is that it avoids* based on cultural perceptions, values, and worldviews no longer the problem of viewing the Creator as the source of a “condi- held or considered valid. tion” or “orientation” of which the church forbids a sexual

38

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 expression. Presumably the thought is that “disordered” condi- Delaney, Carol. 1987. Seeds of Honor, Fields of Shame. Pp. 35-48 tions can be “healed” and rightly “ordered,” experience to the in HOSORAND SHAME AND THE UNITY OF THE MEDITER- contrary notwithstanding. Theoretically, the issue is irrelevant RANV\N, edited by David D. Gilmore. Washington, DC: to the orientation and activity of Roman Catholic clergy, howv- American Anthropologist Association. ever, since celibacy is required of all, heterosexuals and homo- Douglas, Mary Tewv. 1975. IMPLICIT MEA”?\‘CS. ESSAYSIN AN- sexuals alike. At the same time, the view of homosexuals as THROPOLOGY. London, UWBoston, MA: Routledge & “disordered” in their sexuality also includes the clergy under the Kegan Paul. “disordered” umbrella. Ultimately there is no consistency here 1970. NATURALSYMBOLS: EXPLownoNs IN Cossio~oc~. either. In sum, confusion continues to prevail in the churches, London, UK/Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul. with honesty, transparency of policy, and courage to confront 1966. PURINAND DANCER.AN ANALYSISOF COSCEFTS OF the issues directly all too often sacrificed on the altar of institu- POLLUTIONAND TABOO. London, UK: Routledge & Kegan tional expediency and fear of reversing earlier unenlightened PauWewv York, NY: E A. Praeger. positions. Dover, K. J. 1978. GREEKHO~IOSEXUALIIY. Cambridge, MA: As with I Corinthians, so with the Bible as a whole, the Harvard University Press: reprinted, 1989. evidence concerning male-male sexual relationships is too Elliott, John H. 2000. I PETER.Anchor Bible 37B. New York, NY: sparse, too ambiguous, and conditioned by cultural perceptions Doubleday. and behavioral patterns too alien to those of modern times to Grammick, Jeannine,-& Pat Furey, eds. 1988. THEVATICAN AND provide an adequate basis for a contemporary ethic of homosex- HO~IOSExUALlTY.REACTIONS TO THE “LETTERTO THE uality as homosexuality is currently understood. Conversely, the BISHOPSOF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL gender constructs, sexual norms, and rationales involved in the CARE OF HOMOSEXUALPERSONS.” New York, NY: biblical texts that are thought relevant to the issue of homosexu- Crossroad. ality are inconsistent with current scientific data and thinking Greenberg. David E 1988. THECONSTRUCTION OF HOMOSEX- concerning gender, sexuality, sexual identity, sexual choice, and UAL~.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. ethical practice of the present. A case for or against the morali- Halperin, David M. 1990. ONEHUNDRED YEARS OF Hohlosu<- ty of homosexuality as it is understood today will have to be UALm AND OTHEREsMYS ON GREEKLOVE. New York, made on evidence other than the six biblical passages (includ- NY: Routledge. ing 1 Corinthians 6:9-10) customarily cited. The silver lining Halperin. David M.; John J. Wnkler; & Froma I. Zeitlin, eds. 1990. in this dark exegetical cloud is that this may direct researchers BEFORE SEXUALITY THECONSTRUCTION OF EROTIC to other scriptural sources more appropriate for viewing sexual- EXPERIENCEIN THE ANCIENTCREEK WORLD. Princeton, ity in creational, evangelical, redemptive, and spiritual terms NJ: Princeton University Press. and particularly within the Pauline framework of crucifixion Herter, H. 1959. Effeminotus. REALLEXIKONFUR ANTIKEUND and resurrection. CHRISTEWM 4: 620-50.- Hoheisel, Karl. 1992. Homosexualitat. REALLEXIKONFUR ANTIKE Works Cited UND CHRISTENTUhl 16: 289-364. Hupperts, C. A. M. 1988. GREEKLOVE, HOMOSEXUALITYOR Boswell, John. 1980. CHRISTIANTTY, SOCW TOLERANCE,AND PAEDERASTY?GREEK LOVE IN BLACK-FIGUREVASE-PAINT- HOMOSEXUALITY.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 1%. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD SYhlPOSIUhl ON ANCIEI‘iT Brawvley, Robert L., ed. 1966. BIBLICALETHICS AND HOMOSEX- GREEK AND RELATEDPOmRY, Copenhagen, Denmark. UALIp(: LISTENING TO SCRIPTURE. Louisville, KY: \vestmin- Jordan, Mark G. 1997. THE INVENTION OF SODOMY IN sler John Knox. CHR~STIANTHEOLOGY. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Cartledge, I? 198 I. 1981. The Politiw of Spartan Pederasty.” Pp. Press. 17-36 in PROCEEDINGS OF THE CAhlBRlDGE Koch-Harnack, Gundel. 1983. KNABENLIEBEUND TIERGE- PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY. n.s. 27; reprinted in Siems, SCHENKE: IHRE BEDEUTUNG IM PADERASTISCHEN 385-412, with addendum, 413-15. EKZIEHUNGSSYSTEM.Athens, Greece/Berlin, Germany. Countryman, L. illliam. 1988. DIRT, GREED, AND SUC: SEXUAL Krenkel, W. A. 1978. Mannliche Prostitution in der Antike. ETHICS IN THE NEW TESTAMENTAND THEIR IhlPLICATlONS ALTERTUh~24: 49-55. FOR TODAY.Minneapolis, MN: Fortress. Lilja, Saara. 1983. HOMOSEXUALITYIN REPUBLICANAND DeanJones, Lesley. I99 I. The Cultural Construct ofthe Female Body AUGUSTANROME. Cornrnentationes Humanarum Litterarum in Cfussicaf Crcck Science. Pp. I I 1-37 in WOMEN’SHISTORY 74. Helsinki. Finland. AND ANCIENTHISTORY, edited by S. B. Pomeroy. Chapel Lewis, Thomas S. 1’7. 1983. The Brothers of Canymede. Pp. I4745 Hill, NC: university of North Carolina Press. in HOMOSu

39

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010 toga Springs, NY:Skidmore College. ME.Wege der Forschung 605. Darmstadt, Germany: Malina, Bruce J. 200 1. THENEW TESTAMENT WORLD. INSIGHTS Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. FROM CULTURALANTHROPOLOGY, edited by Jerome H. Stegemann, Wolfgang. I 993a. Keine euige Wdrheit. Die Beurteilung Neyrey. 3rd revised and expanded ed. Louisville, KY: der Homosmalitat bei Paulus. Pp. 262-85 in DIS~VSSIONS- Westminster John Knox. BEITRAGE ZU HOMOSEXUALITAT UND KIRCHE,edited by 1990. Mary-Woman of the Mediterranean: Mother and Son. Barbara Kittelberger, LVolfgang Schriiger, & Wolfgang Heilig- BIBLICALTHEOLOGY BULLETIN 20: 54-64. Achneck. Munich, Germany: Claudius Verlag,. 1986. Inferprefingthe Bible uith Anthropology: The Case of the Poor 1993b. Paul and the Sexual Mentality of His World. BIBLICAL and [he Rich. LlSTENlXG 2 1/2 (I 986): 148-59. THEOLOGYBULLETIN 23: 161-66. 1979. Limited Good and the Social \Vorld of Early Christianity. Stuhlrnann, R., M. Hasitschka, and K! Stegemann. 1998. Homo- BIBLICALTHEOLOGY BULLETIN 8: 162-76. serualifiit im Neuen Testament. Ein kulfurclles oder ein theologis- Malina, Bruce J., & Jerome H. Neyrey. I99 I. Honor and Shame in ches Problem? ZEITSCHRIFI-FUR NEUES TESTAMENT2: Luke-Acts: Piuotal Values of the Mediterranean Morld. Pp. 53-68. 25-65 in THESOCIAL \vORLD OF LUKE-ACTS: MODELS Vogtle, .A. 1936. Die Togend- und Lasterkataloge im Neuen FOR INTERPRETATION, edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, Tatament, exegetisch, religions- und formgachichtlich untersucht. MA: Hendrickson Publishers. NEUTESTAhlENTLICHE AHANDLUNGEN 16, 4/5. Munster. Marrou, H. 1. 1964. Pederasty in Classical Education. Pp. 50-62, Germairy: .Aschendorff. 479-82 in A HISTORYOF EDUCATIONIN ANTIQUITY, trans- Waetjen. Herman C. 1996. Same-Sex Sexual Relations in Antiquify lated by G. Lamb. New York, NY: The New American and Sexuality and Sexual Identity in Contemporary American Library-Mentor, 1964. Society. Pp. 103-16 in Bmvley, Robert L., ed. BIBLICAL Nissinen, M. 1998. HO.\lOEROTICIShl IN THE BIBLICAL \vORLD. ETHICS AND HO&IOsExuALrru:LlSTE”KG TO SCRIPTURE., A HISTORICALPERSPECTIVE. 1994 edition translated by K. edited by Robert L. Bmvley. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Stjerna of Homoerotikka Raamatun maailmassa, Helsinki, Knox. Finland. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1998. White, Leland J. 2001. Romans 126-27: The Claim that Patzer, Harald. 1982. DIE GRIECHISCHEKNABENLIEBE. Homosexuality is Unnatural, Pp. 133-49 in SEXUAL SITZUNGSBERICHTE DER WSSENSCHAFTLICHEN DNERSllY AND CATHOLlClS!d, edited by Patricia Beattie Jung GUELUCHAFI-AN DER JOHANN WOLFGANGGOETHE- &Joseph Andrew Coray. A Michael Glazier Book. Collegeville, UNIVERSITATFRANKFURT A%! MAIN 19.1. Frankfurt, MN: The Liturgical Press. Germany. 1995. Does [he Bible Speak about Gays or Same-Sex Orientation? Percy, William Armstrong Ill. 1996. PEDERASTYAND PEDAGOGY A Tat Case in Biblical Ethics: Part I.” BIBLICALTHEOLOGY IN ARCHAICGREECE. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois BULLETIN 25 (I 995): 14-23. Press \Villiams, Craig A. 1999: Roam HO.\IOSutUALlru: IDEOLOGIES Petersen. William L. 1989. On the Study of “Homosexuality” in OF MASCULINITY IN CLASSICAL ANTIQUrrU. New York, N”: fatrislic sources.” Pp. 283-88 in STUDIA PATNSTICA Oxford University Press. 20, edited by E. A. Livingstone. Louvain, Belgium: \Vinkler, John J. 1990. THECONSTRAINTS OF DESIRE: THE Peeten. ANTHROPOLOGYOF SEX AND GENDERIN ANCIENT 1986. Can arsenokoitai Be Translated by “Homosexuals”? (I GREECE.New York, NY: Routledge Cor 6:9. I Tim /:lo).” VlGILm CHRIST~ANAE40: 187-91. Wright, David F. 1984. Homosexuals or Prostitutec: The Meaning oj Scroggs, Robin. 1983. THENEW TESTAMENTAND Ho.\losu<- arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9. 1 Tim 1:lO). VIClLlAE UALllY. CONTEXTUAL BACKGROUNDFOR C0,WEhlPORARY CHRISTIANAE38: 125-53. DEBATE.Philadelphia, PA: Fortress. Zaas, P. S. 1988. Catalogues and Context. 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, Siems, A. K., ed. 1981. SEXUALITAT UND EROTIKIN DER NE\V TESTAMENTSTUDIES 34: 622-29.

40

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com at AUGUSTANA COLLEGE LIBRARY on April 1, 2010