A reflection on 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (ESV)
Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.
1 Timothy 1:8-11 (ESV)
One of the intriguing aspects of the two passages above is that they are both lists. On these two occasions the apostle Paul chooses this dense, compact method of communication to convey the characteristics of those living beyond the law and kingdom. Paul also use lists elsewhere: think the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 and his list of peace-ponderings in Philippians 4:8-9.
One of the characteristics of these lists is that for each element the apostle sees no reason to offer additional commentary or explanation. Paul believes these behaviours and their implications are clear – at least clear enough for his original readers. Where they are not, Paul, unapologetically, leaves space for interpretation and discussion.
The two lists above strike me as lists of sins that demean or harm others. They are not exhaustive of all possible sins. Rather they seem to highlight a lack of love and respect for others. They are exploitative of others.
At least most of them. The phrase, ‘men who practice homosexuality’ seems, well, different.
After all, the word ‘homosexuality’ has implications of orientation. The term was only coined, by Maria Kertbury, during her 1868 study of hormone, biology, and genetic influences on long-term same-sex attraction. It describes orientation. Perhaps this is why the ESV tries to condemn ‘practice’ rather than allow the orientation implications to stand alone.
But is this a fair way to represent what Paul is describing or how his original hearers would have understood his words?
The first of our passages, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, at least in the ESV translation above, translates two Greek terms, malakos and arsenakoitai, with the phrase ‘men who practice homosexuality’. Strangely, in our second passage, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, the term arsenakoitai stands alone and is translated with exactly the same phrase.
What is going on here? A consideration of how these terms may prove helpful.
Malakos claims many meanings including feminine, fine, soft, or sickly. It can be used of clothing or people. In a male context it is often an insult highlighting a lack of masculine characteristics. On its own, it does not automatically hold sexual implications. It does not exclude sexual implications either. As we will see, there are good reasons, in the contexts above, to read male sexual exploitation of other males into these terms.
In our 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 reading malakos appears alongside the term arsenakoitai, which may prove to be the more significant of the two Greek terms for our discussion. Many have considered the implications of these two appearing together. Unlike malakos, arsenakoitai, the term used in both lists, does seem to more narrowly be imply sexual behaviour. It is an uncommon compound made from the words: ‘man’ and ‘bed’. This has led many modern translators, at least over the last 80 years, to quickly conclude that it refers broadly to any homosexual behaviour.
The real question, however, is what would have been the common understanding of the nature of such encounters for Timothy and the people of Corinth?
Translations that do not use the modern term ‘homosexuality’ may be informative. These include ‘male prostitutes’ and ‘pederasty’. Martin Luther referred to ‘men who rape (or ravish) boys’. Common practices of the time included mentor to mentee relationships (with sexual favours as payment for education), male prostitution, and the sexual exploitation of male slaves. These were almost always sexual relationships in addition to heterosexual marriage. One of the few times both malakos and arsenakoitai do appear together in ancient literature is in the myth of ‘Nass’, a story of ‘rape’.
Of course, this is not to deny that committed homosexual relationships existed in the ancient world that Paul and his readers inhabit. It simply raises the important question as to whether this is what Paul is most likely referring to in these lists of exploitative sins.
And from there the question becomes, is the modern term ‘homosexuality’, with its implications of orientation rather than exploitation, an appropriate term to use to translate the common understanding of these two Greek words?
I suspect not.