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.