Venturing into the New Testament, we approach the words and teachings of the very Christ on which all Christian faiths are founded. Recall that the Mosaic law found in the Old Testament was fulfilled in Christ, but it serves as critical context to understanding the messages of the apostles in the New Testament. Meaning and usage of terms in the Old Testament has bearing on the messages intended by the apostles in the New Testament.
There are four references within the New Testament that appear to address homosexuality. The last reference, found in Jude 1:7, has already been discussed in part 5 of this series, The Sin of Sodom. The other three references originate from the apostle Paul. Even though Paul was not one of the original twelve apostles, he had a significant influence over the early Christian church and modern Christian faiths today as half of the books in the New Testament are attributed to Paul.
Paul was the son of a Pharisee who became a Pharisee himself. Not only was Paul born into a devout Jewish family but he was also a Roman citizen. The first reference in question is found in Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (Romans 1: 26-27)
On the surface, with no consideration for context or the author’s intent, this passage can appear to condemn homosexuality. However, what was Paul’s intent when writing this epistle? And how would the Romans have understood it?
In this passage, Paul is talking about a change in nature. The word natural is translated from the Greek word “phusikos.” As far as what Paul considers natural is never specifically defined, by Paul or anyone else in the Bible. What would be considered natural for Paul? Or for the Romans? For example, what the church today considers to be natural sexual interaction is only between one man and one woman within the bonds of marriage. Yet this was not always the case. In the early years of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as far a what was considered natural according to the “New and Everlasting Covenant” found in Doctrine and Covenants, the natural order of sexual interaction was one man married to multiple women. Going back even further, what was considered acceptable sexual interaction in the Bible gets more expansive:
- Man + Woman
- Man + Multiple Women
- Man + Multiple Women + Concubines
- Man + Woman + Woman’s Handmaid/Slave
- Man + Brother’s Widow
- Rapist + Victim
- Male Soldier + Prisoner of War
- Male Slave + Female Slave
- Prostitution
How many of these examples were designated to be natural in the Bible? None of them, though they were all allowed. Even prostitution was accepted, even though a prostitute or harlot was a depreciated member of society.
When speaking to the Corinthians, Paul remarks on what is natural using the same Greek root word with regards to grooming standards, “Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15) These standards were specific to the Greco-Roman audience that Paul was talking to in Corinth, not to the Jewish communities that practiced different grooming standards.
Furthermore, in today’s church, would a long-haired man or a short-haired woman be shamed and excommunicated from the church? Of course not, because we understand the context of Paul’s words relating to cultural commentary and not part of the gospel of Christ.
Expanding the examination of Romans 1:26-27 to the surrounding verses provides additional context into understanding Paul’s intent. After greeting and thanking the saints in Rome for their faith, Paul gives them a warning “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (Romans 1:18). He continues to describe those he considered to be ungodly and unrighteous:
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 1:22-25)
The Greco-Roman culture of the time did not worship the one true God as the Jews did, the Romans were polytheistic, worshiping many gods. The Greco-Roman gods would also take on both human and animal forms such as Zeus who became a swan for Leda and an eagle for Ganymede.
Paul was talking about the idol worship that permeated Roman culture and society.
The verses 26 and 27 are then followed by Paul further describing idol worshipers as those who forget God, which is then followed by a list of the fruits of those who fall away from the one true God including “unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbites, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful” (verses 29-31).
This is the kind of list that a prophet or apostle would give for those who fall away from God, and would be consistent with the definition of abomination established in the Old Testament. Viewing verses 26 and 27 within the context in which they are given we find that Paul is not speaking about homosexuality in general instead he is talking specifically about idol worship and the sexual activities that could accompany idol worship which included both heterosexual and homosexual acts.
Speaking against sacred prostitution is not new. The mention of idol worship in verses 22-25, followed by the example of sacred prostitution in verses 26-27, along with the specifics found in verses 29-31 are all consistent with how abomination was used and follows the same patterns as the prophets in the Old Testament.
When speaking about that which is natural, considering this usage within the framework of idol worship, Paul appears to be describing the relationship between man and God. Performing pagan rituals as part of idol worship would be unnatural to man’s relationship with God. According to Paul, when man chooses to worship false gods, the natural order becomes corrupted, and man falls into a state of wickedness as specified in verses 29-31.
Again, Paul was addressing the issue of idol worship that permeated Roman society; specifically sacred prostitution, not homosexuality in general.
The next reference from Paul is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Which coincides with 1 Timothy 1:9-10
Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;
The portion of this passage that falls into question is the “effeminate” and the “abusers of themselves with mankind”, the latter of which is often interpreted as homosexuality. This verse raises the same questions as with the passage in Romans. What did Paul intend with this verse? And how would the Corinthians have understood it? As well as what is the cultural significance of these two groups of people identified by Paul?
The word “effeminate” is translated from the Greek word malakoi comes from the word malakos which means “soft” or “soft to the touch.” The word malakoi was used in a variety of ways and is found being used when describing clothing that was soft, decadent food, or even femininity in general. When used in association with a man, it was implied that the man was soft, lazy, or weak. When used in a sexual context we find examples of both heterosexual and homosexual encounters in Greco-Roman literature from that time period. In fact, there are more heterosexual examples of malakoi than there are that are homosexual. The term itself was not specifically homosexual or heterosexual, it simply meant a male that was seen or implied to be feminine. This usage is very much like today’s nomenclature where men or boys that are seen as weak are labeled with terminology with feminine origins (e.g. girly, sissy, pussy, etc).
The next term arsenokoitai, translated to ”abusers of themselves with mankind” in the KJV, is unique to Paul. This word has no pre-history to its appearance in Paul’s epistle to the Corinthians and it is believed that Paul coined this word. The precise meaning of which also died with Paul as he never defined it. Unfortunately, there are few instances of arsenokoitai in first-century literature, when it does appear it is often included with lists of injustice and exploitation. The word itself is a compound word made up of arsen (male) and koite (bed). Literally translated, it means “a male in bed” and could be taken to mean “a male who goes to bed” or “a male who has sex” which by itself has no homosexual implications.
Recall that Paul was a Roman citizen, as such he would be familiar with the culture, customs, and language of these people. If Paul’s intent with this verse was to describe homosexuality in general, he could have used paiderasste or more than a dozen other Greek words that described homosexual acts that were in use at the time. Sex was pervasive throughout the Greco-Roman culture during this time period; this is not to say that it wasn’t without social rules, of which there were many. As such, there was no shortage of language to describe homosexual acts. Yet Paul chose to coin a new term.
Corinth was one of the four main cult centers for the worship of Aphrodite, the goddess of love, lust, pleasure, and procreation. It is no surprise that Paul would comment on matters of sexual importance as this would be an issue of importance for the saints in Corinth. In this case, when malakoi is used in conjunction with arsenokoitai, Paul was referring to the catamites, who were pubescent boys that were used for sexual gratification by older males in the practice of pederasty among Greco-Romans. Pederasty literally means “the love of boys.”
In the male-dominated contemporary Greco-Roman culture of the time, it was within the rights of an adult male to have sex with not only his wife but also slaves (both male and female), prostitutes, or young boys. These young boys (malakoi) were often forced into feminization in appearance, in behavior, and in some extreme cases castration. In the pederastic relationship, these pubescent boys were nothing more than sexual objects to be used by the older male. Other contemporary authors around the time of Paul, such as Plato and Philo of Alexandria, also spoke against the practice of pederasty and even used language similar to Paul describing the practice as “contrary to nature” and “against nature.”
Paul’s term of arsenokoitai would not be used for very long. “Within a few decades, the early Christians had contrived a new word to convey their unqualified disapprobation of practices that had subsisted across the centuries. A compound word, paidophthoria, ‘the violation of children,’ appears scattered throughout the earliest layers of Christian literature.” (From Shame to Sin: The Christian Transformation of Sexual Morality in Late Antiquity, Kyle Harper).
Alternatively, Paul’s choice to combine male and bed could be a reference to the use of the Hebrew word miskeve in Leviticus 18:22, which can be translated as “bed.” This common root may have been understood to be a reference to sacred prostitution according to the Old Testament prophets.
Regardless of whether Paul’s usage of malakoi and arsenokoitai was intended to mean just pederasty, or to mean both pederasty and sacred prostitution, the result is the same. Only through a surface reading devoid of context can these passages from Paul be considered to be condemning homosexuality in general.
In the passages found in Romans, 1 Corinthians, and 1 Timothy, Paul was addressing the specific acts of idol worship and the deplorable sexual abuse of children.
To use these passages in any other way than how they were intended by Paul to harm or marginalize any other group of people would be a gross misinterpretation, spiritually abusive, and would go against the very tenets that Christ established and demonstrated during His ministry.
Comments
Post a Comment