Gospel Prism

Or do you know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakos), nor homosexuals (arsenokoitai)…

And immoral men and homosexuals (arsenokoitai) and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching … [used in context of the Law being made for these types of people]

Concerning these two passages, the translations of two words used for homosexuals in the Greek have raised considerable debate. Boswell notes that the first word malakos was never intended to apply to homosexuals. He writes, “At a broad level, it might be translated as either ‘unrestrained’ or ‘wanton,’ but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholly gratuitous.” (Boswell, 106-7) The word malakos originally had the connotation of “soft” and could have referred to a young boy with effeminate qualities (thus, its rendering of “effeminate” in the NASB). However, Gordon Fee observed,

But it (malakos) also became a pejorative epithet for men who were `soft’ or ‘effeminate,’ most likely referring to the younger, ‘passive’ partner in a pederastic relationship—the most common form of homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world. (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 243)

It would seem that malakos would not be a word that Paul would use to describe general wantonness and licentiousness.

The next word in 1 Corinthians 6:9 arsenokoitai has also caused problems for interpreters. Boswell has argued that arsenokoitai did not refer to homosexuals, but male prostitutes, what he considers to be a completely different matter. (Boswell, 107)

However, Fee contends that the word, although difficult, has as its root “male intercourse.” He notes: “There is no question as to the meaning of the koitai part of the word; it is vulgar slang for “intercourse.” (Fee, 244) So the question remains, “Does this refer to the male shrine prostitute or to the homosexual?” Fee concludes,

Boswell has argued that neither word can be certainly made to denote homosexuality. His argument, however, seems to be a case of “divide and conquer.” What may be true of the words individually is one thing. But here they are not individual; they appear side by side in a vice list that is heavily weighted toward sexual sins. Although one cannot be certain, it is very likely that the NIV is moving toward a proper understanding by translating “male prostitute” and “homosexual offender,” with the proviso that “male prostitute” most likely denotes a consenting homosexual youth. For Paul’s attitude toward homosexuality in general one need refer only to his own Jewish background with its abhorrence of such, plus his description of such activity (Rom. 1:26-27). (Fee, 244)

1 Timothy 1:10 utilizes the same word arsenokoitai and its usage directly parallels 1 Corinthians 6:9, and therefore the same argument would apply here.

One must realize that John Boswell’s study [1] on these two words is not without admiration. It is obvious from his work that he has gone to great lengths to come to his conclusions. Yet, what Boswell forgets to see is the obvious. Paul condemns homosexuality not because he has an aversion to homosexuals, but because the rest of Scripture has also condemned homosexuality as a sin.

This Scriptural study has not been exhaustive. I did not refer to Judges 19 (although it is a reflection on Genesis 19), Deuteronomy 22:5, nor the Jonathan and David relationship, along with the Ruth-Naomi relationship. Both of these relationships have been noted by certain exegetes as homosexual and lesbian relationships.

—

[1] Richard Hays has written an article refuting John Boswell’s exegetical work of Romans 1, among other passages. Richard Hays, “A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1, “ Journal of Religious Ethics 14:1 (1986) p. 184-215.