Tag Archives: homosexuality

‘Arsenokoitai’ and ‘Malakoi’ in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Leave a reply

I first looked at these two words in a discussion of the place of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible‘ [1] Their use in the two passages above has always provoked controversy. ….

‘Men Who Practice Homosexuality’ …

This phrase is used in two translations of the Bible, the ESV and the 2011 revision of the NIV. This ‘catch-all’ phrase in these two translations is not warranted by the individual Greek words used in these two contexts. The translation of these two words has always been a matter of uncertainty and debate and an accurate translation should have made it clear that it is not possible to define their meaning exactly.

The way the two Greek words are treated is a case of over simplification by the translators. In an endeavour to simplify a reading of the text, they have allowed their assumptions to narrow down meaning and perhaps even obfuscate what is true. The truth is that scholars either do not know, or cannot agree on the meaning of two Greek words, The two words are arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίτης) and malakoi (μαλακοὶ). Their exact meanings are seemingly lost in the past and scholars have been debating the best translation of the words for some length of time.

The assumption that the translators of the ESV and the NIV make is that together they are a kind of ‘catch-all’ for all homosexual acts. This is just one opinion, it is not a justifiable assumption for translators to make.

Look at how historic translations of the Bible have translated ‘arsenokoitais‘: “bugger (1557), liers with mankind (1582), sodomites (1735), abusers of themselves with mankind (1885), those who abuse themselves with men (1890). The closest meaning of ‘arsenokoitai’ over five hundred years of translation was men who took the active role in non­procreative sex. ‘Arsenokoitai’ did not define what we would call the sexual orientation of a person; it indicated the role played in the sexual act.” [7]

A shift began to happen in the late 1940s: “‘Arsenokoitai’ was translated in the 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible as “homosexual.” This meant that the translation changed the meaning of the original word from a condemnation of any kind of man who played the dominant role in sex with another male to a condemnation of one specific kind of man—a gay person.” [7]

“After the RSV translated ‘arsenokoitai’ to ‘homosexual’, …   ‘Arsenokoitai’ was soon translated variously: pervert (1962); sexual pervert (1966); sodomite (1966); and those who practice homosexuality (1978).” [7]

In the culture in which ‘arsenokoitai’ originated, the meaning was closest either to pederasty or to a man engaged in exploitative sex with a male with some sort of trade or money involved. “Such relationships were not and are not equal-status relationships; one partner has power, while the other is being used and degraded.” [7]

Note too that, while defining the meaning of ‘arsenokoitai‘ is fraught with difficulty, one thing is not in doubt. “It is clear from all its contexts that it does not refer to women in any way. Yet, when ‘arsenokoitai’ was mistranslated to ‘homosexual’, it immediately, by definition, came to include women as well as men.” [7] This shift in translation seems to have occurred, not as a result of a careful hermaneutic or as a result of  literary scholarship through a change in the translators “sexual ideaology.” [7]

Now look at how leading English translations treat these two words, ‘Arsenokoitai‘ and ‘Malakoi‘,  in 1 Corinthians 6:9: [2]

“men who practice homosexuality” (ESV; a marginal note reads, “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts”)

“men who have sex with men” (NIV [2011]); a marginal note reads, “The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts”)

“male prostitutes … homosexual offenders” (NIV [1984])

“effeminate … homosexuals” (NASB 1995); a marginal note to the first word reads, “i.e. effeminate by perversion”

“effeminate … sodomites” (NKJV)

“effeminate … abusers of themselves with mankind” (AV).

We have already noted that a significant change occurred in the 1940s. But, even so, there is actually very little agreement over the exact meaning of each word. “These translations appear to agree that the individuals in view are men who are engaged in some kind of sexual activity of which Paul disapproves. But the translations’ differences outshine their agreement. Should the terms be understood together or separately? Does the term ‘malakos’ denote male homosexual activity (generally), the passive participant in a homosexual act, a man who engages in paid sexual activity with other men, or an effeminate man? Does the term ‘arsenokoites’ denote male homosexual activity (generally) or the active participant in a homosexual act (specifically)?” [2]

Reviewing the evidence in commentaries and academic literature only widens the uncertainty over the meaning of these words. A survey of the commentaries and academic literature would only yield further possibilities.

I have taken the short notes above from a conservative evangelical website [2] to illustrate that this breadth of meaning has to be embraced before the argument on that website concludes that, when taken together, the two words are a kind of ‘catch-all’ phrase which embraces all homosexuality, both inclination and action. The result is that many who hold the traditional position on ‘homosexuality’ argue that the particular texts which use these words, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, say that “homosexuals” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Hence, the church cannot affirm same-sex relationships without abandoning the gospel.

We have, however, to be very careful in dealing with these two words and we must look as closely as we can at their use in antiquity, particularly within the cultures of Paul’s day, and we must strive not to read back into them the cultural categories of our own times. This is a trap which we can all fall into so easily.

The term malakoi literally meant “soft,” in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s day. It was  often used to refer to, a lack of self-control, weakness, cowardice, and laziness. These were seen as negative characteristics and were often attributed to women in the societies of Paul’s day.

“The term was also long translated as ‘effeminate.’ Although most uses of the term in ancient literature were not related to sexual behaviour, men who took the passive role in same-sex relations were sometimes called ‘malakoi’, which is why many non-affirming Christians argue that it represents a condemnation of same-sex relationships. But even in sexual contexts, ‘malakos’ was most frequently used to describe men who were seen as lacking self-control in their love for women. It’s only in the past century that many Bible translators have connected the word specifically to same-sex relationships. More common English translations in past centuries were terms such as ‘weaklings’, ‘wantons’, and ‘debauchers‘.” [3]

“‘Malakoi’ is easier to translate because it appears in more ancient texts than ‘arsenokoitai’, yet it suffers other complications when translated to modern English. Older translations for ‘malakoi’ are: weaklings (1525), effeminate (1582, 1901), those who make women of themselves (1890), the sensual (1951). … Then, just as happened with ‘arsenokoitais’, there was a radical shift over just a few decades. Following cultural stereotyping of gay people, ‘malakoi’ was translated as follows: those who participate in homosexuality (1958), sexual perverts (1972), male prostitute (1989).” [7][8]

Again, these changes reflect changed modern perspectives rather than a better understanding of the meaning of words within their original context.

Even so, doesn’t Paul’s practice of using ‘malakoi‘ and ‘arsenokoti‘ in tandem make it likely that he uses it in a way that refers to what we call ‘homosexual behaviour’?

The term ‘arsenokoites‘ “comes from two Greek words: ‘arsen’, meaning ‘male’, and ‘koites’, meaning ‘bed’. Those words appear together in the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, leading some to speculate that Paul coined the term ‘arsenokoites’  in order to condemn same-sex behaviour.” [3] Whether this is a speculation rather than a warranted assumption is a matter of dispute, because traditionalists argue that it is the most likely meaning of the word as Paul used it.

Speaking from a liberal perspective, Carolyn Bratnober argues in ‘Legacies of Homosexuality in New Testament Studies: Arsenokoitai and malakoi, fornicators and sodomites, in the history of sexuality and scripture‘, [4] that “the tragedy of conservative homophobia in the 1980s was this: that antihomosexual usage of biblical texts was enflamed by HIV/AIDS discourse — while, at the same time, the effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on communities in poverty and communities of colour were unreported for so long that the epidemic devastated these communities to a greater extent than it did gay communities. Progressive biblical scholars, as well as Christian Religious Right leaders, fed this focus on homosexuality in their studies of New Testament texts. They focused so much on homosexuality that they missed the big picture: anti-imperial, anti-exploitation theology. President Reagan’s condemnations of “welfare queens” and “moral failures,” bolstered by his supporters on the Religious Right, co-opted a version of Pauline ethics that supported empire rather than opposed it. Failure to acknowledge this deeply problematic history of Biblical literature is harmful for the contemporary LGBTQ community and for combatting the legacies of racism in the United States. There is a deep and urgent need for Biblical scholars and historians to heed the words of Emilie Townes and others calling for efforts toward a counterhegemonic history that overturns pervasive racist myths and invisibilized narratives that continue to marginalize oppressed groups based on perceived collective characteristics. Biblical scholars and those who utilize scriptural resources in their work must address the historic use of Pauline epistles in homophobic discourse. They must acknowledge that terms such as ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ referred to those who were vulnerable to sexual and economic exploitation through the social institutions of slavery and forced sex in the Roman Empire.”  [4: p51-52]

Bratnober is prepared to state categorically that the translation of ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi‘ to mean “homosexuals” or “sodomites” in the NRSV is false. “The idea of the ‘sin of Sodom’ can be traced to Biblical texts [although I question the link to ‘homosexual actions’], but not ‘sodomy’ or ‘sodomites’- these terms were developed in the medieval period.” [4: p46] And she mentions the work of Scroggs, who argued that  ‘malakoi‘ and ‘arsenokoitai‘ referred to counterparts in sexual encounters where prostitution and economic exploitation were involved—that ‘malakoi‘ would have had the meaning of a specific role, something similar to an “effeminate call-boy” or passive recipient in penetrative sex, and that ‘arsenokoitai’ would have meant the active partner “who keeps the ‘malakos‘ as a mistress or hires him on occasion.”[4: p18][5: p108]

Scroggs mentions that these themes/words appear side by side in 1 Timothy 1 with a third term ‘andropdistai’ – “which was used in several other ancient sources to describe one who is a kidnapper or, literally, a slave-dealer.” [5: p118-120] Scroggs interprets the author of 1 Timothy’s inclusion of ‘andropodistai’ in his list of vices as a reference to specific forms of the sex economy “which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual purposes.” [5: p121] so, if it was this institution of sexual slavery that was being condemned in 1 Timothy and even in 1 Corinthians, then it is slavery and rape which must be the subject of all scholarship on ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ in the New Testament—not ‘homosexuality’ as such. [4: p18]

Bratnober spends some time delving into the appropriate meaning of these two words, but ultimately concludes that much energy has been wasted on this work which would have been better spent on wider issues such as “those who were vulnerable to sexual and economic exploitation through the social institutions of slavery and forced sex in the Roman Empire.” [4: p52]

Just as we looked at early Jewish interpretations of the ‘sin of Sodom’, [1] we do well, in the context of this article to note that some modern Jewish scholars talk of the ‘sin of Sodom’ as prohibited, because “the Canaanites used homosexual acts as part of their pagan rituals. Therefore the Israelites were prohibited from doing this, not because it was an act between two men but because it was symbolic of pagan ritual. In today’s world this prohibition now has no meaning (and homosexual sex is permitted).” [Rabbi Michele Brand Medwin, as quoted by Patrick Beaulier][6]

If it seems that these arguments are about semantics rather than substance, it is worth remembering that dismissing arguments on this basis, or on the basis of seeking to adhere to what appears to be the ‘plain meaning’ of the text, is to fail to properly respect the texts we read. If we claim to respect scripture as the only authority, or even the most important authority, then we only do so if we are prepared to properly investigate what was actually meant by the words of scripture.

So, what is the substance of my argument about the words ‘arsenokoitai’ (ἀρσενοκοίτης) and ‘malakoi‘ (μαλακοὶ). It is simply this, that there remains significant disagreement about the meaning of these words among scholars, some of whom take a conservative position, others who are more liberal. That level of disagreement is sufficient to mean that we are clearly, at least at present, unable to be certain of the meaning and tend to take the meaning(s) that most suit our own arguments. The translators of the revised version of the NIV [2011] and of the ESV abandon the middle ground and assert both in the text and in the margin that these two terms are effectively used together in a ‘catch-all’ way to relate to all forms of homosexuality. This is very far from certain. The NIV and ESV translators should have accepted the ongoing struggle with the translation of these two difficult words (perhaps using the words which appeared in the original 1984 version of the NIV (male prostitutes … homosexual offenders – although, as we have seen, there is a problem with the use of the word ‘homosexual’) and should have placed commentary in the margins which commented on their particular stance in the debate.

References

  1. https://wordpress.com/post/rogerfarnworth.com/40703
  2. https://gospelreformation.net/pauls-understanding-of-sexuality/?print=print, accessed on 18th February 2023.
  3. https://reformationproject.org/case/1-corinthians-and-1-timothy, accessed on 18th February 2023.
  4. Carolyn V. Bratnober; Legacies of Homosexuality in New Testament Studies: Arsenokoitai and malakoi, fornicators and sodomites, in the history of sexuality and scripture; Union Theological Seminary, New York, 2017.
  5. Robin Scroggs; The New Testament on Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate; Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983.
  6. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/196548?lang=bi, accessed on 17th February 2023.
  7. https://canyonwalkerconnections.com/library/bible-verses/1st-corinthians-1st-timothy, accessed on September 2024.
  8. These translations of ‘malakoi’ are examples of the trend in the change of the words used to translate the term. For a more detailed review, please have a look at https://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html, (accessed on 11th September 2024) which gives a fuller list of the words used in different translations.

Romans 1: 16-32 – Paul’s Discussion Considered

1 Reply

Interpreting what the Bible says requires an approach which looks carefully at the context. Both literary and community contexts are always important. So, before considering particular verses in Romans 1, we need to look at the wider narrative context.

“The letter to the church in Rome is Paul’s longest letter, and his most intricate argument. Many have seen it as a complete overview of Christian doctrine, but others feel Paul was dealing with a very specific issue as the ex-Jewish rabbi who became the ‘Apostle to the Gentiles’.” [2] As Graeme Codrington explains: “The view of Romans as a systematic theology has always been problematic, especially in how to integrate chapters 9 – 11 into the flow of the book. Any explanation of the purpose of the letter must result in a consistent exegesis that makes sense of the whole letter. And seeing it a summary of the Gospel does not achieve this.” [2]

So what might Paul be doing in the early chapters of the Epistle to the Romans? And indeed, throughout the whole of the epistle?

It seems to me that the traditional reading of Romans 1, that sees homosexual activity as part of a decent into immorality and, along with other things, a sign that God has abandoned people into the sin that they have chosen, is not an unreasonable initial reading of the immediate text of Romans 1: 16-32. A caveat to this comment must be that the verse which immediately follows this passage (Romans 2: 1) begs a question regarding Paul’s purpose in writing as he does in Romans 1: 16-32 and in the whole of the epistle. Is Paul, in some way, responding to Jewish views about Gentiles?

If these verses express Paul’s consider opinions, they might be better read as Paul having a specific set of excessive sinful behaviours in mind, rather than just homosexuality in general. A better reading of Romans 1: 16-32, is to see Paul speaking to a group of people who have “taken their sexuality to excess and gone against nature, descending into sexual depravity.” [2] In addition, it seems that the traditional reading of these verses fails to consider fully, given the ‘therefore’ of Romans 2: 1, the wider context of Paul’s concerns and hence his careful argument in the letter to the Romans. If either of these questions has some merit, then, as well as seeking to understand what particular excesses Paul is speaking of, we need to:

  • take time to understand exactly who is being talked of;
  • carefully ask whether this is Paul’s thinking, or whether he is effectively quoting others before then going on to comment on their beliefs, and if so, who they might be, and why might Paul be doing so;
  • think about what having ‘gone against nature‘ means.

Graeme Codrington comments that, “most scholars believe that Paul was mainly addressing the issue of Jews and Gentiles and how they were to integrate in the New Testament era. He uses the central theme of covenant and God’s faithfulness and righteousness in covenant relationship to us as his main argument.” [2]

He quotes N.T. Wright as saying that Romans is primarily, “A Jewish Theology for the Gentile world, and a welcome for Gentiles designed to make the Jewish world jealous. … The creator/covenant god has brought his covenant purpose for Israel to fruition in Israel’s representative, the Messiah, Jesus…. The actual argument of Romans, the ‘poetic sequence’ of the letter, relates to this underlying ‘narrative sequence,’ that is, the theological story of the creator’s dealings with Israel and the world, now retold so as to focus on Christ and the Spirit.” [1]

“In fact,” Codrington continues, “Wright goes further to suggest that Paul’s specific reason for writing the letter to church in Rome was to ensure that Jews and Gentiles in Rome worked together and acted as a unified church, in order to provide a base for his missionary activities in the West. This is a very compelling reading of the whole letter.” [2]

In the first of a series of articles about Romans, Daniel Castello explains it as follows:

“Here in the Epistle to the Romans, [Paul] is advocating something that earlier in his life he would have found detestable: the inclusion of the Gentiles in Israel. What a turn of events! When Paul says he is crucified with Christ, he is not just saying something platitudinous; he speaks this way out of a reality, one that undoubtedly causes him shame, inspires within him humility, and perhaps creates within him sympathy for his fellow Jews. And yet this gospel occasioned for Paul tortuous forms of physical hardship and persecution (including stonings and lashes).

These many features of his background led him to consider his apostleship with dedication and passion. At one point, he was persecuting fellow Jews for their beliefs in Jesus as Messiah; later, he became the greatest advocate for Gentile Christians among his fellow Jewish Christians. The shift was difficult for onlookers to believe and difficult for Paul to bear. The Jewish-Christian interface is not something that Paul talks about simply; it is the very stuff of his life.” [6]

Paul probably wrote to the Roman church from Corinth. The epistle is dated AD late 55 to early 57. Some textual variants name Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae, as the messenger who took the epistle to Rome. [5] Codrington comments as follows:

“Emperor Claudius had banished Jews from Rome in 49AD, leaving an entirely Gentile church to grow without Jewish influence – a unique circumstance in the early church era. Claudius died in 54AD, and Jews began to return to Rome. Jewish Christians would have come back to the Roman church but probably not welcomed with open arms – there was considerable tension throughout the region between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul was planning to use Rome as a base for his missionary work in the western Mediterranean, but was nervous that Rome would succumb to the problems that had happened in Antioch when he was based there, when Jewish Christians had tried to impose Jewish traditions on the church there, and caused deep divisions between Jews and Gentiles. These problems are explained in Galatians 2 and Acts 15, including a confrontation Paul had with Peter himself over the issue of the divide between Jews and Gentiles in the early church.” [2]

This issue of the divide between Jews and Gentiles was the single most significant issue that the early church had to deal with, and provoked its first crisis.

Codrington argues that it is “no surprise that Paul dedicates a whole letter to the issue, and that in this letter we see some of his most passionate and insightful writings. This letter to the Roman church was written in order to show that the Gospel might have come to the Jews first, but it is intended for everyone. Gentiles should not marginalise Jews, nor Jews impose their Judaistic history on the Gentiles. Gentiles should not look down on Jews for their ancient spiritual practices. Jews should not try and impose these practices on Gentiles. Jews should not look down on Gentiles for some of the cultural practices of the Greeks and Romans. And Gentiles should be careful not to assimilate too closely to the Graeco-Roman culture, especially when doing so caused their Jewish brothers and sisters to battle with their faith. For example, in Acts 15:28-29, in a letter written to the churches, Christians were told that the Jewish law was no longer applicable, but that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols and from sexual immorality. Paul specifically overrides this in Romans, with a few references to food sacrificed to idols, explaining that there are no issues with this at all in itself, but that Christians should be sensitive to each other, and especially sensitive to their weaker brothers and sisters and those with less faith (see Romans 14 in particular).” [2]

I think that this ‘theory’ about the letter to the Roman church is really quite plausible. If we are willing to accept that this is, at least, one possible way of reading the epistle, then we need to return to the text of its first chapter and look carefully at what Paul may be saying.

It seems to me that Codrington is right to assert that, “Paul begins his letter by using standard Jewish critiques of Gentiles, and especially Jewish critiques of Rome itself. These include the Jewish disgust of public nudity, public displays of sensuousness, the revealing clothes the Romans wore, homosexual relationships, and Gentile eating habits.” [2]

Codrington suggests that Jewish Christians, throughout the Roman Empire, were gravely concerned about Gentile Christians who still frequented the temples and ate food sacrificed in those temples. He says: “All of these issues were general concerns in many locations at the time – passages similar to Romans 1:18-32 can be found in The Dead Sea Scrolls, for example (in fact, some scholars suggest that Romans 1:18-32 are actually part of well-known Hellenistic Jewish literature which Paul goes on to critique in Romans 2.” [2]

Gary Shogren, in a blog which takes a traditional, non-affirming, stance on sexuality, highlights something of the parallel nature of this part of Romans with the text of particular parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls:

“In 1:29-31 Paul writes up a so-called vice list. Vice lists and virtue lists were a common figure of speech in that era, whereby the author would compile a list of [behaviours] and present them with little elaboration, in order to give his readers direction toward holiness and away from wickedness. One example from the Dead Sea Scrolls: “to the spirit of deceit belong greed, sluggishness in the service of justice, wickedness, falsehood, pride, haughtiness of heart, dishonesty, trickery, cruelty, much insincerity, impatience, much foolishness, etc.” (1QS IV, 9-11). Philo wrote one list that contains a whopping 147 elements. We have already mentioned 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; two other vice lists were likewise connected with exclusion from the eschatological kingdom (Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5). The fruit of the Spirit are presented in the form of a virtue list (Gal 5:22-23).

Paul mentions 20 elements in this list, ranging from breaking the Ten Commandments (“they disobey their parents”) to the mundane (“boasting”). If the greatest commandment of Torah was to love Yahweh with all one’s being (Deut 6:4), then to be a “God-hater” (v. 30) is the greatest form of wickedness.” [7]

The ‘You, therefore, have no excuse’ (Διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ ὦ ἄνθρωπε = Therefore inexcusable you are O man) at the beginning of chapter 2 of the Epistle to the Romans is very significant. It is difficult to overemphasize its importance. The key question is who is being addressed in these words.

Codrington comments: “The only reading that fits into the overall flow of Romans and makes sense of the message of the letter is that in Romans 2:1 the shift to the direct address (the second person singular), along with the coordinating conjunction (Greek:  Διὸ), indicates that the reader who agrees with or [the person] responsible for writing Romans 1:18-32 is now the person addressed.” [2]

Having used a very Jewish form of critique of the Gentiles, Paul, in continuing his argument (Romans 2) is turning back to face his Jewish listeners/readers and saying: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” [Romans 2: 1, NIV]. This is a rebuke and it is potent! [8][9][10][11]

If this is the case, Paul is effectively saying that those who believe the things stated in Romans 1: 18-32 are the one’s who will face God’s judgement. So, Paul speaks to those who support the words spoken in Romans 1:18-32 and he says:

“Because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.” (Romans 2:5. NIV)

This is a shocking statement for the Jewish Christians in Rome. Really shocking! Paul speaks to them directly, he quotes their argument/opinions and follows it with this statement: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” [Romans 2: 1, NIV]

Paul goes on, in the verses that follow, to argue that both Jew and Gentile have rebelled against God and that: “There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honour and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favouritism.” [Romans 2: 9-11, NIV]

It is from this base that Paul develops his argument in chapter 2-8 of Romans. God’s grace and justification ‘through faith alone‘ means that, as Codrington says: “Jews are welcomed equally with Gentiles, not rejected (chapters 9-11). So now the church must live in unity, characterised by love – for each other and for everyone (chapters 12-13). Unity requires agreeing to remain in diversity and accept differences in the way we express our faith (chapters 14-16).” [2]

The whole epistle is essentially the outworking of Paul’s understanding of God’s grace. Codrington points us to what N.T. Wright says: “The poetic sequence of Romans, therefore, consists of a major argument, as is now regularly recognized, running not just as far as chap. 8 but all the way to chap. 11. A good deal of this argument is a matter of setting up the terms of the discussion so that they can then be used quite directly when the real issue is confronted head on. Once the great argument is complete, Paul can turn to other matters in chaps. 12-16. These are not to be marginalized: 15: 7-13, for instance, has a good claim to be considered the real summing-up of the entire letter, not merely of 14: 1 – 15: 6.” [1][2]

Codrington also points us to” “A good summary of … the whole letter to the Romans … in Romans 14:13-14 (similar to 2:1): ‘Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I am convinced, being fully persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for that person it is unclean.‘” [Romans 14: 13-14, NIV]

Ultimately, Paul makes his point in summary in Romans 15: 7-13: “Accept one another, then, just as Christ accepted you, in order to bring praise to God.” [Romans 15: 7, NIV] … “Jews and Gentiles alike have disappointed God, but God is faithful and has established a new covenant with us, in Jesus.” [2]

So, back to Romans 1:18-32. …

It seems as though Paul’s main concern is not, primarily at least, with the content of these verses but rather with what Jewish Christians might think about Gentile behaviour. Paul is concerned about Jewish judgement of Gentiles. If we are to understand these verses correctly, this is the context within which we must work. It is, effectively, the only way in which things makes sense. The pronouncements in these verses are the self-righteous expression of Jewish condemnation of Gentiles!

As Codrington states: “The list of sins is therefore more about what Jewish people found repulsive in Gentiles than what Paul did.” [2] As the list goes on, it becomes easier and easier to hear a developing bitterness and a repudiation/judgement on virtually every aspect of Gentile life. In fact, the list covers every perceived evil in community, family and individual life that must have also been as true of Jews as well as Gentiles! … For instance, who has never disobeyed their parents? [Romans 1: 30]

The anger and judgement expressed in this passage highlights the importance of Paul’s words about judging others which follow immediately in Romans 2: 1. Paul is not describing homosexuality as worse than any other sin, but rather talking of excesses in the Gentile world. It is difficult to equate the excessive behaviour Paul seems to be describing here, with loving, close and committed same sex relationships.

We cannot even be sure that Paul sees things the way that they are expressed in these verses. Paul is primarily pointing out that seeing other people’s activities as vile and condemning them for acting in this way brings judgement on those making the assessment. … This must give us grounds to take stock of our own attitudes.

On the other hand, neither can we be sure, from this passage, that homosexuality is not sinful. There are two grounds for this.

The first is related to the context in which Paul is arguing – the idolatry of the Gentile world and particularly as it appeared in Corinth and Rome. It is impossible to separate out pagan worship in Rome’s temples or the excesses of Roman patrons to their younger charges, or the behaviour of owners with slaves, from the excesses of which Paul writes. We just cannot tell what Paul or, perhaps, any other commentator would want to say about committed, faithful homosexual relationships which may, or may not have been recognised in the society of the time. We just don’t know.

The second relates to the use in this part of the letter to the Romans of the argument that some things are ‘against nature‘ (παρὰ φύσιν). [Romans 1: 26-27] We will come back to this conundrum in another article.

We cannot legitimately use Romans 1: 16-32 to condemn all homosexual behaviour, nor can we justifiably argue that committed, faithful homosexual relationships are acceptable. That they might not be within the scope of Paul’s developing argument does not, in and of itself, indicate approval.

If, however, we look at the whole of the letter to the Romans, which emphasises God’s love, faithfulness and kindness to us, it is “quite difficult to imagine that Paul would use these verses to speak against lifelong, loving, covenantal same gender relationships. The emphasis of Romans 1 is that people who push the boundaries of their behaviour to unnatural extents are sinning against God. But all of us do this in one way or another, and we’re all in need of God’s grace.” [2]

In this short article, we have, I think, shown that there are at least some grounds for questioning traditional assumptions about the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans. When these verses are, set alongside Paul’s emphasis in the letter on God’s grace, justification by faith, and God’s faithfulness and kindness towards us, they leave us needing to take great care in how we apply them in our own context.

We will be arguing from unsure foundations if we assert that the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans makes an unequivocal statement about lifelong, loving, covenantal same-gender relationships.

We are left, however, with one significant issue to address which might seem to be conclusive – the question of what is meant by something being ‘against nature‘ (παρὰ φύσιν). We will look at this question in another short article which can be found here. Although we will need to continue to bear in mind a reservation/uncertainty about the place that Romans 1: 26-27 has in Paul’s thinking. Is it Paul’s own views, or is he quoting others? Is Paul quoting what many a Jewish Christian might be thinking and then countering it with his ‘you therefore’ in Romans 2: 1? Or is he expressing, in Romans 1:16-32, his own understanding of God’s position?

References

  1. N.T. Wright: https://ntwrightpage.com/2016/05/07/romans-and-the-theology-of-paul, accessed on 7th June 2024.
  2. Graeme Codrington: The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 10: Re-read Romans 1; https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/10/15/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-10-re-read-romans-1, accessed on 7th June 2024.
  3. Graeme Codrington: The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 11; https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/10/15/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-11-shameful-acts-and-going-against-nature, accessed on 8th June 2024.
  4. Graeme Codrington: The Bible and Same Sex Relationships, Part 12; https://www.futurechurchnow.com/2015/11/12/the-bible-and-same-sex-relationships-part-12-what-romans-1-is-really-all-about, accessed on 8th June 2024.
  5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_the_Romans, accessed on 9th June 2024.
  6. Daniel Castello; Introduction to the Epistle to the Romans; https://spu.edu/lectio/introduction-to-the-epistle-to-the-romans, accessed on 9th June 2024.
  7. Gary Shogren; Romans Commentary, Romans 1:18-3:20; https://openoureyeslord.com/2018/02/27/romans-commentary-romans-118-320, accessed on 10th June 2024.
  8. https://www.bibleref.com/Romans/2/Romans-2-1.html, accessed on 13th June 2024.
  9. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/2-1.htm, accessed on 13th June 2024.
  10. Dan Wilkinson; The Punctuation Mark That Might Change How You Read Romans;  https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/09/the-punctuation-mark-that-might-change-how-you-read-romans, accessed on 13th June 2024. Note: this article draws on  reference [11] of which I have not been able to get a copy.
  11. C.L. Porter; Romans 1.18–32: Its Role in the Developing Arguement; in New Testament Studies, 40(02), 1994; p210.