Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ 1 Corinthians

[Bebop]

Do the original translations mean homosexuals or boy molesters?

Read: https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

If it’s boy molesters then I totally understand and hate and abhor those who sexually molest/rape/whatever children.

If it’s always been to mean homosexuality then fine. Whatever.

[jimwalton]

Here are the resources at my disposal.

ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai) — the first half of the word (arsenikos) denotes "male", and the second half of the world denotes "coitus" — relates to male coitus with a male. In ancient Greece and Rome, same sex coitus was often pederastic (though not always), often a display of power (a right and privilege of the wealthy and powerful, or the head of the household), but sometimes just sexual engagement. Therefore the word does include pederasty and homosexual rape, but that's not its only meaning.

Richard Hayes, in a book titled "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" (p. 382) says, "This word is not found in any extant Greek text earlier than 1 Corinthians. Robin Scroggs has shown that it is a translation of the Hebrew mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), derived directly from Lev. 18.22 and 20.13 and used in rabbinic texts to refer to homosexual intercourse. Thus, Paul’s use of the term presupposes and reaffirms the holiness code’s condemnation of homosexual acts. This is not a controversial point in Paul’s argument; the letter gives no evidence that anyone at Corinth was arguing to the acceptance of same-sex erotic activity."

Jeffrey Olson (RBC Ministries) says, "Some would suggest that this verse only condemns homosexuality associated with pagan religious practices. There is nothing in the surrounding context, however, that justifies limiting the meaning of these verses to homosexuality involved with pagan worship or to pederasty. Though such meaning is included, there is no evidence suggesting the reference is to these activities exclusively."

The term before it ("malakoi") was the passive partner in same-sex coitus (the one penetrated), and the "arsenokoitai" was the active partner (the one penetrating). As for "malakoi," Hays ( in MVofNT) and Brownson (in "Bible Gender Sexuality") say Malakoi is not a technical term meaning "homosexual," for no such term existed either in Greek or in Hebrew, but it appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the "passive" partners—often young boys—in homosexual activity. Using these multiple words reflects widely accepted roles that were part of same-sex erotic behavior in the ancient world: active older men with passive younger men, i.e., pederasty.

[Mike Maz]

1 cor 6:9 means neither homosexual nor pederast because neither are a temptation "common to man"

1 Corinthians 10:13

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful and will not permit you to be tempted beyond which you are able, and will with the temptation provide a way to escape so that you may be able to bear it."

[jimwalton]

You can't possibly be claiming that the Bible teaches that only things that are common to everyone can possibly be sins. There's nothing biblical about that position.

Whether it is a temptation or not has nothing to do with what the term means. The following section (1 Cor. 6.12-20) is talking about sin, and using the example of sexual sin to show the truths he is making about sin itself. Verse 15 says that we belong to Christ and so should not indulge in sexual sin, because our bodies are just as important as our minds and our souls. Instead, we should become one with God (1 Cor. 6.17) in every way.

In verse 18 he gives a general command: "Flee sexual immorality (of all kinds)." Sins of the body are just as much sin as sin of the mind.

So 1 Corinthians 6.9 is about sin. Men having sex with other men is a sin, whether you are the receiving partner (malakoi) or the penetrating partner (arsenokoi). It is just as much as a sin as idolatry, prostitution, adultery, theft, greed, drunkenness, slander, and cheating.

What Paul is saying is not bound by whether it is a common temptation or not. It's a sin.

The context of 1 Cor. 10.13 (about temptation) is in a section where he's talking about the Israelites, and no one should feel that they are safe (from God's judgment) just because they are Jewish. It has no particular relation or constraint to what Paul is saying in chapter 6.

[Spiderman]

this is all correct to the best of my understanding. i'm going to add some supplemental information to your post; please don't read these as arguments against your points, but as more information relating to them.

> Richard Hayes, in a book titled "The Moral Vision of the New Testament" (p. 382) says, "This word is not found in any extant Greek text earlier than 1 Corinthians. Robin Scroggs has shown that it is a translation of the Hebrew mishkav zakur (“lying with a male”), derived directly from Lev. 18.22 and 20.13

more specifically, an adoption of language from the LXX translations of those verses. consider:

וְאֶ֨ת־זָכָ֔ר לֹ֥א תִשְׁכַּ֖ב מִשְׁכְּבֵ֣י אִשָּׁ֑ה תֹּועֵבָ֖ה הִֽוא

the bolded words here are "zakar" (first on the right) and "mishkav" (second on the left, a conjugation of shakav, lay). they're actually parts of separate phrases, but it's clear they've read the implications here and formed a new phrase in interpretation. the corresponding words in the septuagint are:

καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν

these words are (left to right) "arsenos" and "koiten". this the greek of 1 cor 5:9:

ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν μὴ πλανᾶσθε οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται

"aresenokoitai". so this is probably where paul got the phrase.

> Therefore the word does include pederasty and homosexual rape, but that's not its only meaning.

for the similar verse in lev 20:13, sanhedrin 54a:29 states:

GEMARA: From where do we derive the prohibition and punishment for homosexual intercourse with a male? It is as the Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And if a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood shall be upon them” (Leviticus 20:13):** The word “man” excludes a minor boy. The phrase “lies with a male” is referring to any male, whether he is an adult man or whether he is a minor boy.** The phrase “as with a woman [mishkevei isha],” referring to lying with a woman, appears in the plural. The verse teaches you that there are two manners of lying with a woman for which one who engages in intercourse with a woman forbidden to him is punished, vaginal and anal intercourse.

[Mike Maz]

> You can't possibly be claiming that the Bible teaches that only things that are common to everyone can possibly be sins. There's nothing biblical about that position.

I'm clearly not claiming that. I'm claiming that the Corinthians were not tempted to sins that were not common to man.. exactly what the bible says. Paul refers to a subset of sins in chapter 9 and these sins, whatever they are, are common to man.

1. The Corinthians were sinners.
2. The Corinthians were not tempted to sins not common to man.

Therefore:

3. The Corinthians never committed sins that WERE uncommon to man(like sodomy).

And it follows:

1 cor 6:9 is not mentioning sodomy.

[jimwalton]

> I'm claiming that the Corinthians were not tempted to sins that were not common to man.. exactly what the bible says.

I'm still missing your point. I have never been tempted to steal. I wouldn't even dream of it. Does that mean it's not a sin?

Homosexuality was rampant in Corinth. It was a common part of Roman and Greek culture. Sarah Ruden (Johns Hopkins, Harvard, Yale) writes about Paul,

"What he saw as a boy influenced him more than his tradition did. Among the female prostitutes on the streets, or in the windows or doorways of brothels, were males, on average a lot younger. At any slave auction he found himself watching, there might be attractive boys his own age knocked down to local pimps at high prices, to the sound of jokes about how much they would have to endure during their brief careers in order to be worth it. ... Flagrant pedophiles might have pestered him and his friends on the way to and from school, offered friendship, offered tutoring, offered athletic training, offered money or gifts. But adults he trusted would have told him that even any flirting could ruin his reputation, and at worst get him officially classed as a male prostitute, with the loss of all of his civic rights. ...

"The Roman poet Martial uses “to be cut to pieces” as the ordinary term for “to be the passive partner.” The Greeks and Romans thought that the active partner in homosexual intercourse used, humiliated, and physically and morally damaged the passive one. Heterosexual penetration could be harmless in the Christian community, in marriage; homosexual penetration could be harmless nowhere. There were no gay households; there were in fact no gay institutions or gay culture at all, in the sense of times or places in which it was mutually safe for men to have anal sex with one another.

"In 5th-century Athens (the gay paradise we hear of), one of the most common insults in comedy was “having a loose anus,” meaning depraved—not just sexually, but generally.

"It was a system of ethics that locked people into this cruel regime, a regime which also included the erotic oppression of women. While Paul may seem to mention lesbianism, this was such a rare or little-noticed phenomenon in the ancient world that it is likely he instead means anal penetration of women by men. That did happen often, but men valued it less than penetration of boys: women were made to be penetrated anyway; a real man needed to transform an at least potentially active and powerful creature into a weak and inferior one.

"The Greeks and Romans even held homosexual rape to be divinely sanctioned.

"No wonder parents guarded their young sons doggedly. It was, for example, normal for a family of any standing to dedicate one slave to a son’s protection, especially on the otherwise unsupervised walk to and from school: this was the pedagogue, or “child leader.” Since success with freeborn, citizen-class boys was rare, predators naturally turned to those with no protectors, young male slaves and prostitutes. Besides that of the pedagogue, another telling slave profession—perhaps only among Romans—was that of the deliciae (“pet”) or concubines (“bedmate”), a slave boy whose main duty was passive anal sex with the master. The public acknowledged such a child’s status, as well as his vulnerability to being retired at a young age. His retirement was not likely to be a happy one; he kept the stigma of passive sodomy, but he lost the protection of his close relationship to his master, while usually remaining bound to the same household and the other slaves with the accumulated grudges. They may have refused him, as he would have passed his “boom,” even the status of a sexual plaything." (She continues her chapter with pages and pages of information.)

Does that change what you're saying about Paul's writing to the Corinthians? I'm confident it follows that 1 Corinthians 6.9 clearly includes sodomy.

[Mike Maz]

> I'm still missing your point. I have never been tempted to steal. I wouldn't even dream of it. Does that mean it's not a sin?

How could you be missing my point? So just because you claim you’ve never been tempted to steal means that sodomy is a temptation common to man?

The problem is you’re not quoting the bible. You’re quoting mans words. If you want to believe Paul is talking about sodomy, go right ahead. It would be wrong though.

[jimwalton]

I've been quoting the Bible all along. The terms, as in my first post, point to the fact that it includes all same sex, not just pederasty. The context, as in my second post, shows that Paul's words don't relate to temptation but rather to sexual sin of all kinds. I've shown you from 1 Corinthians that the issue is what is sin, not whether one is tempted or not. Sodomy is clearly being forbidden. It's beyond a doubt.

[Mike Maz]

You quoted Martial.

I’m not saying sodomy isn’t forbidden by God. Did I say that ever? It’s clear by lev 20:13 that it’s an abomination.

I’m saying that people INSERT homosexuality into 1 cor 6:9 because of false bible versions mistranslating that verse. I’m saying that if there is a doubt that 1 cor 6:9 is talking about sodomy that it clearly isn’t because sodomy is not a normal thing to be tempted about. Only reprobates burn in lust for strange flesh.

1 cor 6:9 is about Paul telling them not to take disputes with brethren to mans court but to settle disputes in the church.