Homosexuality in the NT: A further reflection

[angellous_evangellous]

When I was translating Polycarp to the Philippians, I came across the oft debated words for male homosexuals - malkoitai and arsenkoitai - commonly translated "effeminate" or "aggressor." In a stroke of genius, I translated these words as "sexually effeminate males" and "sexually aggressive males" - noting the sexual nature of these words in the NT and other Greek literature like Plato and Plutarch.

After considerable thought, I think that we can further distance the homosexual nature of these words and retain their historical context. We do so by noting that the "sexually effeminate" person - in this case, male - is a person who has a lifestyle of inviting sex in a way that completely lacks discretion and self-control. The "sexually aggressive male" is the male who is driven by sexual desire to dominate, control, and manipulate. In short, both types place little or no value on critical relationships... instead of functioning as reliable friends and caring for others, they place importance on sexual gratification, not caring about who they harm... and so forth.

Such activity is obviously applicable to both "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" and everything to the left and right.

 

[sojourner]

When I was translating Polycarp to the Philippians, I came across the oft debated words for male homosexuals - malkoitai and arsenkoitai - commonly translated "effeminate" or "aggressor." In a stroke of genius, I translated these words as "sexually effeminate males" and "sexually aggressive males" - noting the sexual nature of these words in the NT and other Greek literature like Plato and Plutarch.

After considerable thought, I think that we can further distance the homosexual nature of these words and retain their historical context. We do so by noting that the "sexually effeminate" person - in this case, male - is a person who has a lifestyle of inviting sex in a way that completely lacks discretion and self-control. The "sexually aggressive male" is the male who is driven by sexual desire to dominate, control, and manipulate. In short, both types place little or no value on critical relationships... instead of functioning as reliable friends and caring for others, they place importance on sexual gratification, not caring about who they harm... and so forth.

Such activity is obviously applicable to both "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" and everything to the left and right.

That's insightful of you. I wonder if similar words are found in the few canon scriptures where homosexuality is concerned?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's insightful of you. I wonder if similar words are found in the few canon scriptures where homosexuality is concerned?

I don't think so for the NT.

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't think so for the NT.

The title of this thread leads us to think that your discover has some relevance to the NT. If you're dealing with different words, what relevance would this discovery have for reading those NT passages that have homosexual behavior in view?

 

[tomspug]

Such activity is obviously applicable to both "heterosexuals" and "homosexuals" and everything to the left and right.

Exactly. I'm totally on the same page.

To me, sexual immorality is all about the intentions and actions of the individual. It is not necessarily the absence of love, but the selfishness that allows the "using" of others for personal gratification, allows manipulation, allows separation after unity.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The title of this thread leads us to think that your discover has some relevance to the NT. If you're dealing with different words, what relevance would this discovery have for reading those NT passages that have homosexual behavior in view?

I think that it extends NT condemnation of sexual activity rather than limits it.

This reading expands what NT readers and translators commonly associate with homosexuality to any male who is effeminately or dominately sexually aggressive. In ancient contexts, especially Roman ones, males and females had sexual relations with eachother based on quite a bit more than sexual attraction or orientation. NT scholarship has already realized this.

We can see a similar action today: people engage in sexual activity with eachother for a wide variety of reasons ... attraction may be part of it, but also advancement at work, gaining access to a variety of other goods and services, and entertainment (and so on).

 

[Dunemeister]

I think that it extends NT condemnation of sexual activity rather than limits it.

This reading expands what NT readers and translators commonly associate with homosexuality to any male who is effeminately or dominately sexually aggressive. In ancient contexts, especially Roman ones, males and females had sexual relations with eachother based on quite a bit more than sexual attraction or orientation. NT scholarship has already realized this.

We can see a similar action today: people engage in sexual activity with eachother for a wide variety of reasons ... attraction may be part of it, but also advancement at work, gaining access to a variety of other goods and services, and entertainment (and so on).

Okay, I see the point about people engaging in sexual activity for reasons other than orgasms and orientations. But are you saying that homosexual sex is necessarily effeminately and/or dominately sexually aggressive? In your mind, is homosexual sex always effeminate, or are you parsing definitions a bit differently here?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

But are you saying that homosexual sex is necessarily effeminately and/or dominately sexually aggressive? In your mind, is homosexual sex always effeminate, or are you parsing definitions a bit differently here?

Oh, of course not. Quite the opposite... I am approaching homosexual and heterosexual sex on a similar plane - in fact this is my point - that both types of sexual encounters can be effeminate or aggressive to the extent that they cause people to neglect relationships, or in the Christian case, neglect the realization of the kingdom of God.

 

[Dunemeister]

Oh, of course not. Quite the opposite... I am approaching homosexual and heterosexual sex on a similar plane - in fact this is my point - that both types of sexual encounters can be effeminate or aggressive to the extent that they cause people to neglect relationships, or in the Christian case, neglect the realization of the kingdom of God.

So are there homosexual "encounters" that do not neglect (negate?) the realization of the kingdom of God? Are there any that might actually affirm the kingdom of God? How does your discovery relate to such questions (or does it)?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So are there homosexual "encounters" that do not neglect (negate?) the realization of the kingdom of God? Are there any that might actually affirm the kingdom of God?

Yes, I think so... inasmuch as these encounters contribute or at least do not neglect or devalue relationships within the community (eg., as an expression of love).

How does your discovery relate to such questions (or does it)?

It permits an exegesis from regulating the exclusion from the kingdom of God to homosexuals alone to everyone who abuses sex.

On the other hand, I realize that Paul's cosmology excludes homosexual activity de facto.

 

[Dunemeister]

BTW, A_E, I hope you don't feel like you're being subject to an inquisition. I'm genuinely interested in teasing out the significance of these passages.

Yes, I think so... inasmuch as these encounters contribute or at least do not neglect or devalue relationships within the community (eg., as an expression of love).

Okay, that's clear enough, then.

It permits an exegesis from regulating the exclusion from the kingdom of God to homosexuals alone to everyone who abuses sex.

But clearly scripture does this anyway. In what particular way does your quote improve upon, sharpen, or add to what the biblical revelation tells us?

On the other hand, I realize that Paul's cosmology excludes homosexual activity de facto.

And de jure! Here are a couple of quotes from the NT that bear on what we've been talking about:

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it legitimately. 9This means understanding that the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, 10fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. 1 Timothy 1:8-11

In both these passages, St. Paul is pretty clear about the place of homosexual activity in the church, viz. none. They also deny the kingdom of God to those who do things other than homosexual acts, including other sexual acts. But if Paul is so clear about that, what does that mean for your discovery, particularly what you said about homosexual encounters possibly expressing authentic love? How would you harmonize these statements?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

See, this is key. I'm talking exactly about these two words. "Male prostitute" is "effeminate" and "sodomite" is "aggressive." The translation that you provided here is absolutely the worst one possible - it is the most removed and highly interpreted version of the words. It's possible that "effeminate" means "male prostitute" but strictly associated with the effimenate nature of it and the word itself lends nothing whatsoever to prostitution specifically.

"Sodomite" may be an acceptable translation, because sodomy is not exclusively homosexual, but sodomy in itself may not carry with it sexual aggession that the word specifically means.

It is a great error to associate these two words exclusively with homosexuality. It may include homosexual acts that are excessively effeminate or aggressive, but it also includes any type of sexual activity which harms the kingdom... that is, breaks fellowship in the community.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

In both these passages, St. Paul is pretty clear about the place of homosexual activity in the church, viz. none. They also deny the kingdom of God to those who do things other than homosexual acts, including other sexual acts. But if Paul is so clear about that, what does that mean for your discovery, particularly what you said about homosexual encounters possibly expressing authentic love? How would you harmonize these statements?

Well, for me the defining issue for Paul and homosexuality is Romans 1 and Ephesians 5. It's a cosmology: Christ is male, church is female, and heterosexual sex represents that mysyterious unity. It is an honor to the creator and created.

We simply don't share that cosmological view anymore, and if we do, it is a sadly peiced together Frankenstein with no real contact with Paul. In other words, if we use Paul exclusively to define love, we are self-defeating because we are hopelessly incapable of reconstructing it in a meaningful way.

Because we are reconstructing Paul - and if we are doing so for application in the church - we should do so in a way that better reflects Christian values of edification of the community, redemption, faith, hope, and love.

As for the nature of homosexual sex ... it is an experiential, relational knowledge that reveals to us that kind of sex is not always destructive to the community. There are many types of heterosexual sex which are more destructive than general homosexual sex - and the destructive varieties of both have a lot in common: levels of consent, age, intent, and so on.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Here's more research that I've done:

Paul: Sexuality and "Nature"

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ality-cosmology-nature-choice-irrelevant.html

Some notes on Paul and homosexuality.
I've changed my mind about Gnosticism
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/science-vs-religion/48918-paul-sexuality-nature.html

 

[Dunemeister]

See, this is key. I'm talking exactly about these two words. "Male prostitute" is "effeminate" and "sodomite" is "aggressive." The translation that you provided here is absolutely the worst one possible - it is the most removed and highly interpreted version of the words. It's possible that "effeminate" means "male prostitute" but strictly associated with the effimenate nature of it and the word itself lends nothing whatsoever to prostitution specifically.

"Sodomite" may be an acceptable translation, because sodomy is not exclusively homosexual, but sodomy in itself may not carry with it sexual aggession that the word specifically means.

It is a great error to associate these two words exclusively with homosexuality. It may include homosexual acts that are excessively effeminate or aggressive, but it also includes any type of sexual activity which harms the kingdom... that is, breaks fellowship in the community.

Okay, I kinda thought you may have had those two words in mind. I'd always heard these words as referring to homosexual acts, but specifying the "receptive" and "aggressive" partners. Thus the word "aggressive" was used, not to point up something particularly malicious but the active partner (so to speak). Now, you're saying that we should understand these words a bit differently based on these outside sources.

But here's a wrinkle. The church has, throughout her history, understood the passage we're discussing as referring to "mere" homosexual acts, apart from any emotional attachment or committedness. So perhaps it's possible that the words in the NT might mean "effeminate" and "aggressive" in your sense in another context. But perhaps the church was using those words to pick out the mere act of homosexual sex and labeled it as sinful regardless of what emotions attach to it. In other words, as happened in other cases, the biblical writers are reforming the use of the words. If that's so, it's unclear whether we can just take the meanings of the words from outside the NT and neatly transfer them over to the NT.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Okay, I kinda thought you may have had those two words in mind. I'd always heard these words as referring to homosexual acts, but specifying the "receptive" and "aggressive" partners. Thus the word "aggressive" was used, not to point up something particularly malicious but the active partner (so to speak). Now, you're saying that we should understand these words a bit differently based on these outside sources.

But here's a wrinkle. The church has, throughout her history, understood the passage we're discussing as referring to "mere" homosexual acts, apart from any emotional attachment or committedness. So perhaps it's possible that the words in the NT might mean "effeminate" and "aggressive" in your sense in another context. But perhaps the church was using those words to pick out the mere act of homosexual sex and labeled it as sinful regardless of what emotions attach to it. In other words, as happened in other cases, the biblical writers are reforming the use of the words. If that's so, it's unclear whether we can just take the meanings of the words from outside the NT and neatly transfer them over to the NT.

No, I'm developing this. I think that the church is correct in applying it to homosexual action, but utterly inappropriately, because the action is not specifically homosexual. I'm developing and clarifying an idea to remove what I think is an error: attributing the action to specific homosexual activity, when it's not the activity that is the problem, but the nature and intent of the action.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that Paul is against homosexual activity, but it is for a cosmological view, and the words that he uses are not limited to homosexual actions. Scholars have know that for a long time. My contribution is that we can accept homosexual action as we reconstruct Paul, and still keep the spirit of the Scripture, if we want, by emphasizing the intent. I suppose another important contribution is that Christians should apply these words to heterosexuals as well - not alienating these passages from the majority of the people by seeing these folks as "us" and "them."

After all - all of us fit into the categories that Paul uses - we're all theives, liars, sorcerers, and so on. All of us are sexually inappropriate and unable to contribute to God's kingdom, until "as we are graced."

For example, if we learn from the excessive amount of testimony that homosexuals love eachother, and Paul is wrong about the destructive nature of such acts in his cosmology (which, of course, the church has accepted and must accept) - we can apply the text in a more responsible manner.

 

[Dunemeister]

Well, for me the defining issue for Paul and homosexuality is Romans 1 and Ephesians 5. It's a cosmology: Christ is male, church is female, and heterosexual sex represents that mysyterious unity. It is an honor to the creator and created.

We simply don't share that cosmological view anymore, and if we do, it is a sadly peiced together Frankenstein with no real contact with Paul. In other words, if we use Paul exclusively to define love, we are self-defeating because we are hopelessly incapable of reconstructing it in a meaningful way.

I don't share your pessimism!

Because we are reconstructing Paul - and if we are doing so for application in the church - we should do so in a way that better reflects Christian values of edification of the community, redemption, faith, hope, and love.

Ah, redemption. Redemption from what? And what does it look like when we've got it? Perhaps abstaining from homosexual sex is part of the redemptive package....

As for the nature of homosexual sex ... it is an experiential, relational knowledge that reveals to us that kind of sex is not always destructive to the community. There are many types of heterosexual sex which are more destructive than general homosexual sex - and the destructive varieties of both have a lot in common: levels of consent, age, intent, and so on.

Being destructive of the community isn't the only basis for saying an act is wrong. An act may be considered right or wrong because of its effect on virtue. For example, I may not do any harm to the community by not being generous in supporting the community financially. Others may be giving more than enough to support the ministry of the church and then some. Yet, it's still wrong for me to withhold my contribution because it cultivates the vice of miserliness or meanness. Thus there is no direct harm to the community because of my action, but it leads to a vice which may cause that harm.

Or an act might be considered right or wrong because it causes harm (or could cause harm) to the individuals involved. Male homosexual sex is notorious for this in particular inasmuch as it is responsible for serious health issues (no, I don't mean just AIDS).

So yes, community life is A consideration, but it's not the only one when we discern the appropriacy of actions or lifestyles or whathaveyou.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

After all - all of us fit into the categories that Paul uses - we're all theives, liars, sorcerers, and so on. All of us are sexually inappropriate and unable to contribute to God's kingdom, until "as we are graced."

You know - this may well be the heart of the issue. An attempt by the church to locate actions which are unqestionably destructive so they can thoughtlessly avoid them, and then demarcate themselves into "us" and "them." With "them" under the thumb and under the rug, "we" know that we're building God's kingdom, no matter how unredemptive and destructive our relations are with "them."

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't share your pessimism!

haha

No, my friend, I don't share yours.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Being destructive of the community isn't the only basis for saying an act is wrong.

Of course it is. There is no other standard of measurement.

The church simply adds that what is constructive is what is says, no matter how we can measure that it destroys. And who is the destroyer?