In Case Anyone is Intersted

[Suzy]

For too long, those on both sides of the argument have thrown the Bible at each other in response to the issue of the Bible and homosexuality.  To be overly simplistic, we usually hear the Right saying:  But the Bible says......    Those on the Left say that this is one of the main reasons the Bible should be rejected outright.

Now a lot of the controversy appears around the use of two Greek words in 1 Corinthians 6:9):  malakoi and  arsenokoitai (See also 1 Timothy 1:9-10.  The first term is sometimes used to also discriminate against transgendered persons.

I should also say that neither of these words are easy to translate, as their meanings have grown ambiguous over time.  In fact, at different times in history, they have meant different things and have been translated different ways.  However, with a little open, honest research, I think it is quite possible to uncover the common meaning of the words at the time that Paul used them. 

In summary, malakos referred to to being weak, in the way that a female is.  Of course in that culture, this was not complimentary.  It is somewhat analogous to a drill sergeant calling his troops girls to try to get them to toughen up.   He does not mean that they are gay in the modern sense, or that they are physically female, just that they need to be further developed.  In Paul's time, it is especially important to note that this term was generally used to connote the lack of self control.  While I certainly would argue with that culture's perception of women, in no way does Paul use the term to mean gay men or even transsexuals.

The word arsenokoitai is a word virtually invented by Paul, which makes its meaning even harder to discern.  In my opinion, it likely means an adult who has sex with a child. 

A look through the history of translation, from very early to modern, will show how these words were co-opted into societal arguments of the day and were purported to mean anything from masturbation to prostitution to now, GLBT people.

Now the purpose of my writing is not to convince anyone one way or the other about the Christian faith.  It is obvious where I stand and I respect your right to disagree.  However, for those who share my faith, or are interested in responding intelligently to those who want to use the Bible as a weapon, I offer the following links, which also have bibliographies for more in depth study.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc1.htm
http://fogarty.org/tim/gay_issues/word_arsenokoitai.html
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html
http://christiangays.com/articles/malakoi.shtml

Peace All,
Kristi

[finewine]

[...]
In Paul's time, it is especially important to note that this term was generally used to connote the lack of self control.  While I certainly would argue with that culture's perception of women, in no way does Paul use the term to mean gay men or even transsexuals.

I suspect you're right, at the very least for the TG usage - but I wonder how sure we can be?  Genuine question - not a challenge...I honestly don't know.  What I do know is that colloquial and metaphorical implication is a feature of language as far back as you want to look, hence why I wonder if we can really know what "slang" meaning the term may have carried back then?

You probably know better than me but I suspect that pederasty wasn't yet a taboo when the ancient Greek translations were made?  If so, then I also would be unsure that any reference to homosexual relations was intended (or if it was, that it was unequivocally negative.

While the faith aspect leaves me cold, I confess to some intellectual curiosity about when and how we had the genesis of the social homosexuality taboo.

[Key]

Hmm, the meanings of the words, I'll have to sit down and discuss with my pastor about them.  I think he of all people would be the most knowledgeable and able to shed light on the topic, he being a history major and a pastor. 

Finewine, i also would be interested to find where the taboo against homosexuality starts for the church.  Most people would commonly point to levitical laws ragarding the subject of homosexuality and sodomy, but the fact that those very laws were laid aside when Jesus died for us makes them more moot in point.  It said he came to fulfill the laws of moses, which were, of course, the ten commandments.  Levitical laws were a compilation of laws over time, if I remember correctly, most pertaining to health and longevity.  Diverting to this topic, I can go into saying that the times when they were introduced by God to man came at points in time where the human genetics were at a certain point.  One example would be the marrying of siblings, or of direct family.  Taking the idea that Adam and Eve were the pinnacle of perfection before they fell, they would likely contain all of the DNA possibilities, the AA BB, aa, bb, and such combos, and along the line when the genetics were breed out to be close to races we have today, he stepped in to say you need to stop, because the health ramifications. 

In comparison, laws about homosexuality would have been passed because of the increased risk of disease associated with them.  When it came to the time after Jesus, it was just something that was so widely accepted, what christians of the time might have thought separated them from the 'heathens' that they kept with it, remembering that law and others because they had followed them so long and it was ingrained.  Draw a parallel to civil rights.  Years down the road we still have racism, even though the majority know it's wrong.  Why?  Because people don't back down on their beliefs they followed for so long so easily. 

The jist is, Homosexuality is considered a taboo because we try to fathom the complexity of God's design, thinking that just because the traditional idea of coupling is man and female, that it must be the right one.  I think the core of the the issue is that people are afraid of people different from them, and they don't follow Christ's example to go amongst them and befriend them, seeking the similarities, not the differences. 


Sorry if that seems like a rant, it made sense in my head...

[Suzy]

Wow, I did not think anyone read this post. 

Finewine, pederasty was well documented from the time of around 630 BC.  Yes, for the ancient Greeks it was quite common.  But it seems to have been completely taboo for the Jewish population, and by default, for early Christians.

As far as the meanings of the words, there are a number of translational principles to use.  The first is context.  Look at the passage immediately preceding and following a particular word.  Often this will be enough to tell the true meaning of the word.  In the case of arsenokoitai, this is virtually all we have to go on.   The opposite, however is true of the word malakos.  As I said it is well documented and in common use.  Compare other usages in the passage, the book, the rest of scripture, and finally, wider usage of the word at the time of writing.  There are other principles, such as first considering the most simple interpretation, and not smoothing over difficult words to make them say things the passage did not say.  Sorry to way oversimplify this, but I don't want to get bogged down here.  Certainly there will be some disagreements, especially where alternate readings occur between manuscripts, but for the most part, it is not terribly difficult.

I think that what we need to guard against is taking the history of interpretation of the word as a completely reliable guide for the true meaning of the word as originally used.  It seem rather obvious that the translators of some of the English versions have seen fit to adapt the Greek to fit their modern cultural mores.  This will always be a great danger.

Key, if you discuss this with your pastor, please let us know what s/he says.

Kristi