Moltmann on the Difference Between Jesus and Paul

The preaching of Jesus, like that of Paul, is eschatological preaching; in the case of Jesus, the preaching of the kingdom of God; in the case of Paul, of the righteousness of God. The difference between them is not the superficial one of changed ideas, but is determined by their different theological situation. For Paul, that which for Jesus was the future is the present or the future of God inaugurated in the history of Jesus. The differences arose not from the further development of the teaching of Jesus, but from an apprehension of the changed situation of the essential substance itself. Jesus speaks and acts with respect to the dominion of God which is to come and is now coming into being. Paul speaks and acts with regard to the dominion of God which has already been inaugurated in the crucifixion and the resurrection of Jesus, and the righteousness of God which has already been revealed. (The Crucified God, pg. 120)

Working Together for Deliverance: Greek Verbs in Philippians 2:12-18

¹²W”ste, ajgaphtoiv mou, kaqw;V pavntote uJphkouvsate, mh; wJV ejn th÷Æ parousiva÷ mou movnon ajlla; nuæn pollwÆ/ maÆllon ejn thÆ÷ ajpousiva/ mou, meta; fovbou kai; trovmou th;n eJautwÆn swthrivan katergavzesqe` <sup>13</sup>qeo;V gavr ejstin oJ ejnergwÆn ejn uJmiæn kai; to; qevlein kai; to; ejnergeiæn uJpe;r thÆV eujdokivaV. <sup>14</sup>pavnta poieiæte cwri;V goggusmwÆn kai; dialogismwÆn, <sup>15</sup>i”na gevnhsqe a[memptoi kai; ajkevraioi, tevkna qeouÆ a[mwma mevson geneaÆV soliaÆV kai; diestrammevnhV, ejn oiflV faivnesqe wJV fwsthÆreV ejn kovsmw/, <sup>16</sup>lovgon zwhÆV ejpevconteV, eijV kauvchma ejmoi; eijV hJmevran CristouÆ, o”ti oujk eijV keno;n e[dramon oujde; eijV keno;n ejkopivasa. <sup>17</sup>ajlla eij kai; spevndomai ejpi; thÆ/ qusiva/ kai; leitourgiva/ thÆV pivstewV uJmwÆn, caivrw kai; sugcaivrw paÆsin uJmiæn` ¹⁸to; de; aujto; kai; uJmeiæV caivrete kai; sugcaivretev moi.

¹²So then, my loved ones—just as you have always obeyed, not only in my presence but also much more now in my going away[1]—with reverence and humility continue together in bringing to fruition your own deliverance, ¹³for the one working vigorously among you is God, [compelling you] to desire and to work energetically above and beyond God’s good purpose. ¹⁴Do everything without grumbling and disputing, ¹⁵in order that you may become blameless and innocent, untarnished children of God within your own corrupt generation, in which you are shining as light-bearers in the cosmos. ¹⁶In your holding onto the Word of Life, I may boast on the day of Messiah that I neither ran nor labored in vain. ¹⁷Moreover, if I pour out my life as a sacrifice upon the service of your faith, I can be glad and rejoice in you all. ¹⁸But you likewise should be glad and rejoice with me.

The second chapter of Paul’s letter to the Church in Philippi contains a clear and recurrent dual theme: the necessity for obedience and harmony among the Christian community. In keeping with this thesis, Paul recites a hymn about Christ, highlighting the Messiah’s own obedience to God, inferring that the Philippian congregation should go and do likewise. So intent is Paul on conveying this message of collective submission that he molds his very language to carry his meaning for him, even going so far as to invent completely new words (suvmyucoi—“same spirited ones”—v.2) to describe the shared Christian experience in which he is urging the church to continue to take part. In vv.12-18, his various use of the imperative, subjunctive, and indicative moods paired with the second-person plural (“you all”) verb form emphasizes at times the hortatory nature of his letter and the possible outcome of his instructions, while his use of the aorist tense implies that the church has indeed already been working on these teachings for some time. The second-person plural imperative in particular is often lost in English translations, and along with it Paul’s rhetorical exhortation to communality. In what follows, I will examine the grammatical and syntactical properties of five keys verbs that Paul uses in vv.12-18 as hortatory tools, displaying with his very word choices a pastoral instruction of cooperation and obedience, that the Church in Philippi might become “luminaries in the cosmos,” shining out among their own crooked generation.

uJphkouvsate (v.12)

Paul’s penchant for run-on sentences often creates problems for translators of the Greek text. Such is the case with v.12, which contains a series of clauses that stretches to the end of the following verse. With no punctuation to divide the clauses, discerning just what exactly Paul is exhorting his audience to do can be a tricky undertaking. However, there are outward indicators of meaning in the sentence structure (syntax) of the verse, which I will discuss below. The primary grammatical question raised by efforts to translate the first verb that appears in this passage (uJphkouvsate, from uJpakouvw, “to hear and obey”) is whether it should be treated as an aorist active verb in the indicative or imperative mood.[2] If the verb is in fact a second-person plural aorist active indicative verb, then the verse should read something like what I have translated above. However, if the verb is imperative, it might be translated like this:

So then, my loved ones, continue to obey just as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence but also much more now in my going away. With reverence and humility continue together in bringing to fruition your own deliverance.

Note the improved sentence structure and different punctuation; as an imperative, uJphkouvsate breaks v.12 into two distinct exhortations. However, though an imperative would indeed provide for clearer translation, this is unlikely to be the case. If Paul had intended to use uJphkouvsate as a command to continue in the same obedience that the Church in Philippi had already been practicing, an imperfect (continuous past event) or perfect/imperative combination (past event with continuing effects into the present) would perhaps have been better suited to the task, rather than a simple complexive aorist, which merely “reports” that the Church was obedient sometime before the present.[3] In either instance, the general connotation of the verse remains the same. However, the kaqw;V pavntote phrase which introduces the verb suggests that Paul is in fact referencing a past action in conjunction with an imperative verb to be found later in v.12. If this is the case, then uJphkouvsate must surely be in the indicative mood. The aorist indicates that the Philippians have always obeyed, and in light of that obedience provides them with further instruction in the immediately following clause.

katergavzesqe (v.12)

Having acknowledged the obedience of the Philippian Church, Paul now suggests that they put their obedience to work. Rather than a form of e[rgon—a common word for work involving manual labor—the author here uses the verb katergavzesqe, “work out”. This second-person plural verb is in the imperative mood, indicating that the focus of the exhortation is cooperation toward a given communal purpose rather than a call for individual personal responsibility for salvation.[4] The present tense and deponent voice of the verb reinforce the fact that this work is an ongoing, unfinished process, but one that nonetheless does involve an ultimate completion.[5] The Philippian community is instructed to simply carry to conclusion a divine work that already existed among them from an undetermined point in the past.[6] 

Syntactically, katergavzesqe is modified with the qualifying phrase meta; fovbou kai; trovmou, which defines the manner in which the Philippian community is to “work out” their deliverance. Often translated fear and trembling, this phrase is a common idiom that appears frequently among the letters of Paul; however, in context, reverence and humility or humility and concern might be more appropriate renderings.[7] It is unlikely that swterivan here refers to ultimate individual salvation, but rather indicates the goal that Paul is trying to impart with his exhortation to “continue working out”: cooperative deliverance into a communal spiritual health.[8] The fact that the reflexive pronoun modifying katergavzesqe is plural (eJautwÆn, “yourselves”) reinforces the cooperative and dependent nature of the swterivan to which Paul is referring. Finally, it should be reiterated that Paul intends the two verbs in this verse to work in tandem; the grouping of the present imperative katergavzesqe with the aorist indicative uJphkouvsate suggests a continuation of work that has already begun out of sincere obedience to both God and to Paul.[9]

ejnergeiæn (v.13)

Paired with the articular participle ejnergwÆn, the present active articular infinitive verb to; ejnergeiæn (“to work enthusiastically”) depicts God—“The Great Energizer”[10]—in turn working among the congregation at Philippi, providing the motivation to work above and beyond thÆV ejudokivaV (“the good purpose”). The present tense of both the participle and the infinitive stresses yet again the ongoing nature of this work currently being performed within, among, and by the Philippians. The fact that ejnergeiæn appears side-by-side with another articular infinitive—to; qevlein (“to will/desire”)—conjoined by a double kai; suggests a strong both/and quality to the phrase. Paul is emphasizing that both the energy and the will that drives the obedience and cooperation of the Philippians has in fact been instilled among them by God, “the one who works vigorously.”[11] The exhortation given by imperative in v.12 is strengthened by Paul’s present assertion that God is already at work. 

gevnhsqe (v.15)

As v.15 begins a i{na clause, it is no surprise that a verb in the subjunctive mood is soon to follow.[12] The Philippians are to continue their work energetically, “without grumbling or disputing,” so that they might become (gevnhsqe—second-person plural, aorist deponent subjunctive) innocent and blameless, living up to the standard of Jesus that Paul has already recounted to them in the earlier Christ hymn in vv.6-11. The subjunctive mood suggests a possible outcome of the work that they have been instructed to carry out: if the Philippians continue together in bringing to completion their own communal deliverance, then the expected result is that the congregation might become blameless and innocent.

faivnesqe (v.15)

What, then, is the outcome of these continuous actions of obedience, working toward cooperative deliverance, and striving for blamelessness? Paul suggests that the result of the Philippians’ faithfulness is that they shine or are shining (faivnesqe—second-person plural, present middle/passive indicative) as torchbearers, or luminaries (fwsthÆreV), even within their own corrupt generation—a possible reference to Dan. 12:3.[13] The voice of faivnesqe could indicate a variety of interpretations, including being or becoming visible, though shining— semantically the most powerful extent of light-giving—is ultimately preferable.[14]

Hawthorne correctly notes that it is possible to interpret this verb as an imperative—ie., you must shine—inferring that the role and responsibility of the church is in fact that of the torch-bearer.[15] However, Hawthorne’s commentary tends to over-inflate the passage with imperatives, which effectively devalues any one particular exhortation over another, and thereby deprives the passage of a single, centralized locus. Rather, faivnesqe should be interpreted as an indicative that recalls the v.12 imperative to continue working, as well as the command to do all things (pavnta poieiæte) without grumbling or disputing in v.14.[16] Paul suggests their shining is the direct result of the church’s ongoing pursuit of the spiritual wholeness that God has already germinated within their community. In their obedience, they are like the very stars themselves, casting light into the darkness of the moral cosmos.

Conclusion

            As the possibility of his own death grows increasingly imminent, Paul urges the congregation at Philippi to continue in their obedient work and to do all things without the grumbling and disputing that generates discord within communal life. The imperative to keep working takes on particular importance, as the Philippians can see in Paul’s current situation the very serious consequences of obedience to Christ. As a result of their work, Paul reminds them in his use of the present active indicative verb faivnesqe that they are bringing the light of humility and mutual submission into the darkness of conceit and empty self-flattery that has already fallen upon their own crooked generation. To help them along, Paul has put his own life forth as a sacrifice, devoting himself to their spiritual upbringing, so that he might boast of their obedience on the day of the Messiah. It is in their growth and maturity that Paul takes comfort, leaving the church with one final imperative: rejoice (caivrete) with me.

---

[1] parousiva and ajpousiva: Traditionally rendered “presence” and “absence.” Here, however, is it possible that Paul is juxtaposing a reference to a previous visit to the Church in Philippi with his “going away”—that is, his impending martyrdom? Translated this way, Paul is encouraging the Philippians to continue in their obedience to God even as Paul himself appears to be facing death for his own obedience to Christ. Paul’s suggestion of pouring himself out as a drink sacrifice in v.17 lends particular gravity to this interpretation.

[2] For arguments that uJphkouvsate is indicative, see Jerry L. Sumney, Philippians: A Greek Student's Intermediate Reader (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 52; For imperative, see Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 43 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1983), 98.

[3] Peter T. O'Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary On the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), 276.

[4] Ibid, 278.

[5] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 98.

[6] Bonnie B. Thurston, “Philippians.” In Philippians and Philemon, by Bonnie B. Thurston and Judith M. Ryan. Sacra Pagina Series (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 98.

[7] John Reumann, Philippians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 386.

[8] See Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 98-99, and Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 277.

[9] See Peter T. O’Brien, The Epistle to the Philippians, 275, and Jerry L. Sumney, Philippians, 52. Exactly who the object of the Philippians’ obedience might be is unclear. However, it is generally accepted that Paul is referring to their obedience to both God and himself (cf. Bonnie B. Thurston, “Philippians,” 93).

[10] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 100.

[11] Jerry L. Sumney, Philippians, 53.

[12] Ibid, 55.

[13] Bonnie B. Thurston, “Philippians,” 95.                    

[14] Jerry L. Sumney, Philippians, 55.

[15] Gerald F. Hawthorne, Philippians, 103.

[16] John Reumann, Philippians, 413.

Why You Should Leave Behind Left Behind

If you're going to believe you could be Raptured at any

given moment, it's probably a good idea to keep that

denim skirt at least ankle-length.

When I was a kid, I was crazy about the Left Behind series. By the time I was around 15, I had almost all of the books. We watched the film version of the first book, starring Kirk Cameron, in my youth Sunday school class. It wasn’t until years after being introduced to the books that I began to see the deeply flawed nature of their theology.

Let me be blunt from the beginning of this post: there is no such thing as the Rapture. Nowhere in the New Testament text does it explicitly state that Christians will ever disappear, or suddenly be propelled into "Heaven," leaving the rest of humanity and the earth to go to Hell in a hand-basket. 

The text most commonly utilized as an apologetic for the dubious doctrine of the Rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18:

But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve, as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage one another with these words.

A 19^th-century clergyman named John Nelson Darby is largely responsible for the twisting of this passage to suggest that on the Last Day, Christians will be “caught up” in the air (Latin: rapiemur, the root of the English word “rapture”) and sent to Heaven, leaving this mortal coil behind. His ideas were further interpreted and integrated into the Scofield Bible (1909). The idea of a rapture is only a little more than a century old.

In reality, Paul is referring to the Royal Return of Jesus, or the Parousia (Greek: parousiva). According to scripture, this event immediately precedes the final resurrection of the dead. But a little more insight is necessary to understand why this text-segment has nothing to do with the subject of the Left Behind series. The primary question that any Bible interpreter (pastor, scholar, or layperson) should ask of any given scripture is this: What is the context of this passage?

“We don’t want you to be uninformed concerning those who have died, brothers and sisters,” Paul says. Paul is here addressing concerns from within the Thessalonian community about the return of Christ. By the time Paul was writing to the Church in Thessalonica, the death and resurrection of Jesus was nearly a quarter of a century in the past. People were beginning to die, and communities were beginning to question whether or not their loved ones would be raised from the dead in time to participate in the Royal Return of Christ, which many believed would happen within their own lifetime. In an attempt to calm their fears, Paul is arguing that the dead will indeed be raised at the time of Christ’s return, and that both the living and the dead will be caught up in the air to greet him.

The Greek term parousia (parousiva) literally means “return,” or “visitation.” In the first century, it was often used to describe the royal visits of Caesar. When the emperor would ride into a town, the wealthy and political elites would ride outside the gates of the city to greet him. They would then return in a royal procession into the town square, where the emperor would be presented with lavish gifts worthy of his lordship. The Apostle Paul applies the term to the Return of Christ, and it is this idea that he is getting at when trying to describe the circumstances of what many refer to as the Second Coming. Sure, the living and the dead will be caught up in the air to greet Christ. But the implication (assuming Paul was consistent in his description of the Resurrection on the Last Day) is that when Christ returns, as N.T. Wright says, to “put things to rights,” we will all return to earth to inhabit the New Creation that God has prepared for us.

“Going to Heaven” is not at all a Christian idea. Heaven, in fact, comes to us (as we pray in the Lord’s Prayer). 

Now, one could ponder all day about how exactly this whole business of “getting caught up in the air” is going to happen. However, to give too much authority to a literal interpretation of this text—as George B. Caird says of over-literalized readings of Revelation—is to “unweave the rainbow.”[1] The main point Paul is trying to communicate is quite simply hope. The dead will not be forgotten or abandoned when Christ returns to make all things new, as the Thessalonians feared. In fact, the living and the dead will both share a role in welcoming the Parousia and establishing God’s Reign on Earth for eternity, a reign that leaves no room for death, decay, hatred, or greed.

 

I should make note of the fact that this theological discussion is not a minor one, and the debunking of Rapture theology is extremely important. The most concerning problem of the doctrine is this: dispensationalism and millennialism aren't merely harmful little belief systems that just happen to contradict scripture and the better part of two thousand years of Church doctrine. It is—as my "Resurrection in the New Testament" professor calls it—a "sub-Christian" ideology. And the way these ideas are spoon-fed to our youth is quite dangerous. These beliefs breed assumptions about the inherently evil nature of Creation (which we know from Genesis is untrue; after all, God “saw that it was good”). If we are simply “going to Heaven” and leaving this crazy place behind, there is no need for us to be good stewards of Creation, or even care much for our fellow brothers and sisters who may not share the Judeo-Christian worldview, since it’s all going to burn away, anyway. It becomes a way of avoiding the problems of our time, rather than addressing them, and it takes a dim and shallow view of God’s power to fully redeem the world. It is the ultimate escapist revenge fantasy.  

What do you think? Were you raised to believe in the Rapture? Have you changed your mind since you were younger? Feel free to leave your comments below.

---

[1] George B. Caird, The Revelation of St. John the Divine (London: Black, 1966), pg. 25. Quoted in Anthony C. Thiselton, Life After Death: A New Approach to the Last Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), pg. 109.

Queering the Church, Part Two: Praxis

In my last post, I discussed how the letters of Paul are not as clear on the issue of homosexuality as many in the Church would prefer—indeed, of the two primary pericopae often utilized by “Christian” heterosexist pastors and theologians, the language is in some places quite murky. In contrast, however, Paul does iterate multiple times the absolute necessity of unity, fellowship, love, and submission to one another in the body of Christ. How then do we illustrate this to our congregations? How can the quickly growing field of biblical scholarship and gender studies begin to turn around such an ambling, socially and culturally stunted behemoth? I suggest that this might best be done by “queering” the Church.

             This term, coined by literary queer theorists and theologians in the 1990s, refers to the reappropriation by a marginalized group of a word or object that was previously used to degrade, demoralize, and dehumanize members of that group. Great theological strides have been made in recent years in “queering the Bible,” that is, reading and studying the Bible from an LGBTQ perspective. In this particular case, “queering the Church” refers to the act of making the Church—an institution whose most recognizable public trait is homophobia—into not only an institution which is unashamed and unafraid of its gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, but an institution which openly embraces them. But the term “queering” has another connotation, as well: the action of setting apart, or “peculiarizing.” This is a notion that has deep roots in the liberation theology of the Exodus: “You shall not wrong or oppress the stranger in your midst, for you were once strangers in the land of Egypt.” In queering the Church, we should hope not only to become opened to the LGBTQ community, but stand out among our culture as God’s peculiar, inclusive people, for the simple reason that at some point in our long history, we knew what it was like to be despised, persecuted, “queer.” Is this not the greater mission of the body of Christ?

While it should be observed that no persecuted group has ever achieved justice with a magical catchall sermon or speech, I would here like to briefly outline five specific ways in which our congregations and faith communities might begin to push forward in this dialogue.

1. Begin the conversation

People fear what they do not understand. The more an issue can be discussed, however, the closer our brothers and sisters in the church can be moved toward understanding. David L. Tiede spells out the responsibility of church and seminary leaders to their congregations and students: 

Those who believe that the prevailing mores are unjust or oppressive must either garner the authority of the institutions which articulate and maintain the moral standards of the community or they must challenge that authority. Institutions such as seminaries, congregations, and church offices steward their legitimate authority in these matters more by persuasion than coercion. They must listen to the arguments of those who believe the standards are inept for the many or unjust to the few.[1] 

Sometimes the best way to initiate revolutionary change is to be open with our questions, and not be afraid to push back a little against the presumptions of others.

2. Illustrate the inherent misogyny that underlies homophobia.

As mentioned above, when the Bible is appealed to as a source of wisdom worthy of the so-called “problem” of homosexuality, it may be helpful to very carefully frame the issue within the historical context of misogyny in the ancient world. Most (though not all) modern Christians recoil from the accusation of sexism, and upon further discussion it will become evident to our congregations that our heterosexism is actually just thinly veiled sexism. As Martin claims, “The ancient condemnation of the penetrated man was possible only because sexist ideology had already inscribed the inferiority of women into heterosexual sex. To be penetrated was to be inferior because women were inferior.”[2] If we confront our churches and ourselves with the knowledge that our historical hatred of gays and lesbians is less about sin and morality than it is about deep-rooted assumptions about the superiority of men to women, we can then repent and begin to press beyond such social structures.

3. Be your faith community’s Paul.

            The Apostle Paul was perhaps the very first Christian contextual theologian, and we admire him for this. Should we not fulfill the same role for our congregations and faith communities that are struggling to accept gays into the family of God? Paul wrote on Kingdom ethics from a specific cultural and historical context. We should, therefore, also let our culture and historical context influence how we perceive Kingdom ethics today. It makes little sense to attempt to plug Paul’s contextual theology neatly into our own.

4. Value experience.

Our congregations have too long sat in the festering stagnant water of bibliolatry. When experience ceases to inform reason, and when scripture is treated as a god and not as a tool for communing with God, the Church will lose relevance. To prevent this, we must open ourselves to the moving of the Spirit in our lives, not restricting it to the pages of a book. It is criminally myopic for a church to publicly condemn gays without having ever met one. Actual face-to-face encounters with the LGBT community help to connect faces with the growing number of openly gay Christians who are struggling for a place in the Church, and it is hard to hate someone whom you know and love deeply. We simply cannot afford to place the Bible in such high esteem that we alienate and devalue the experience of others. Our churches need to develop a sensitivity to the Biblical text which is not often seen among people absolutely certain of the truth of their perspective, moving forward with fear and trembling.

5. Love.

Above all, we must love. Often, those claiming to be moderates circumvent the issue of
homosexuality by proclaiming that we should “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Unfortunately,
what we have thus far failed to grasp is that hate is the sin, as described by Paul in the
opening verses of Romans 2. It is easy to isolate two verses in 1 Corinthians 6 and read
what we want to hear from them, giving ourselves permission to discriminate and
marginalize by right of Biblical authority. It is a much more difficult task to take in the
entire letter through the pivotal locus of 1 Corinthians 13: unless we infuse our discourse
with openhearted love, we are but clanging cymbals. And now, perhaps more than ever, is
when the public needs to hear the melody of the Church ringing clearly, a song of freedom
and acceptance.

---

[1] Tiede, 153.

[2] Martin, 48.

Queering the Church: It's About Time (Part One)

Note: This is Part One of my two-part series on homosexuality and the Church. The first part examines supposed references to homosexuality in the letters of Paul; Part Two, which I will post tomorrow, will outline five primary ways to introduce this information to a church congregation.            

For the Evangelical Christian who leans even modestly leftward, it is not a difficult task to hermeneutically bypass Hebrew scripture that appears to condemn homosexual activity. The admonition found in Leviticus 20:13 that anyone found to be engaged in same-sex intercourse should be put to death can be cast in doubt simply by engaging in the process of questioning: In our current cultural context of modern and postmodern American Christianity, who should be deemed worthy by the public to carry out the sentencing of such a crime? Should it be our officers of the law who are to put all homosexuals to death? The absurdity of the question exposes the cultural and contextual gap between ancient Hebrew Yahwism and twenty-first century American globalism, and is often left unconsidered by many who vehemently defend what they call “traditional marriage.” The New Testament Gospels contain virtually no references to homosexuality at all (with the exception of a few queer theological interpretations of extracanonical Gospels[2]), so little can be argued from the authoritative words of Jesus of Nazareth. On this particular issue, he remains peculiarly silent. But what of the letters of Paul? How do we confront the theology of a man whose writings make up more than a quarter of the New Testament with our rapidly shifting knowledge of gender identity and human sexuality? Such is the aim of this study.

In Part One I will address two primary pericopae from the writings of the Apostle Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:24-27, and their literary, historical, and social context. In Part Two of this post, I will help to outline a method in which the material of Part One might be disseminated within a congregational or ministerial setting. 

PART ONE: Textual Analysis

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

Paul’s first letter to the Church in Corinth deals with several important issues with which the early Christians in that city struggled, particularly unity, holiness, love, the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and sexual morality. It is the latter with which this section is concerned. Paul was undertaking no small task to preach to the Corinthians about sexual ethic. Of the cultural setting of Corinth, David L. Tiede writes, “Corinth was a town with a reputation for cosmopolitan airs, for bawdy sex in the marketplace, for crafty dealings among the traders at the port…The human meat markets of every age have looked about the same, and every generation has had its high priests of sexual freedom and pornography.”[3] With this context in mind, two words in particular should be given special attention from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: arsenokoitai (arsenokoitai) and malakoi (malakoi).

            The fluidity of language has a long history of birthing numerous interpretations of the Biblical text, both in ancient times and throughout recent history. Dale B. Martin, in his excellent study of human sexuality and the Church, Sex and the Single Savior, notes that both of these mysterious terms included in Paul’s Corinthian vice list held, until the 19^th or 20^th century, a distinctly male connotation, with no respect to our modern concept of sexual orientation. The term arsenokoitai, for example, took on new meaning when the Greek noun—which refers solely to men—was translated in the early twentieth century with the generic label of “homosexual,” thereby feeding the growing misconception that both the male and female gay identity stemmed from what was commonly considered to be a mental disorder.[4]

Furthermore, Martin suggests that arsenokoitai (arsenokoiteV) has a much more specific meaning than any generic homosexual activity. This specific meaning might be lost to us, but contextual hints may be found in the Sibylline Oracles (2nd - 5th cent., CE), an ancient Greek text which utilizes the word in a vice list very similar to (yet totally independent of) Paul’s reference in 1 Corinthians. However, arsenokoiteV here takes on a distinctly economic meaning, sandwiched between such admonitions as “Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed,” and “Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress the poor man.”[5] In addition, two other early Christian texts, The Acts of John (2^nd cent.) and Theophilus of Antioch’s To Autolychus, also include arsenokoiteV among economic vice lists.[6] It is possible that by including aresenokoitai among such sexual sinners as adulterers (moicoi) and fornicators (pornoi), Paul is attempting to single out those who are motivated by their own greed toward sexual exploitation. In any case, it should be pointed out that the exact definition of this term has been and will most likely remain a mystery, and that due to this ambiguity, translations will continue to be influenced by the particular ideological milieu or bias of the translator. 

Unlike arsenokoiteV, however, the word malakoV (plural: malakoi) does have a well-documented meaning. Long before Arnold Schwarzenegger referred to his political opponents as “girly-men,” the ancients used the term malakoV to refer to any man with a less-than-masculine demeanor, a physically feminine build, distaste for hard work, or an otherwise milquetoast disposition. Josephus and Plutarch both use the term in their writings to refer to the cowardly.[7] The Greek word is actually the etymological ancestor of the English word malleable, and means, literally, soft. Often translated together with arsenokoitai as “sexual perverts” or “homosexuals,” a much closer understanding of the word might be its original King James English translation, effeminate, which inadvertently takes into consideration the inherent sexism of Paul’s culture. Men were chiseled and virile, but women were weak, both in will and in physical stature. The ancient understanding of the feminine was very much influenced by the coital act—men were aggressive penetrators, while women were to passively allow themselves to be penetrated. Any man who was seen to be “soft” followed the natural order of distinction bestowed specifically upon women, and was therefore weak and cowardly. As Martin concludes, the difficulty with Paul’s use of the term malakoV is not the inherently sinful nature of homosexuality, but instead the “rank misogyny” implied by the term.[8] This concept will be explored further in Part II of this study, which will be posted tomorrow.

Romans 1:24-27

In this text-segment, as in the Corinthian correspondence, context becomes one of the key issues to interpreting the passage. It should first be noted that the overarching theme of the Romans letter involves the complicated interplay of salvation for the Jews and salvation for the Gentiles, and it is through this lens that Romans 1:24-27 must be viewed. Specifically, when Paul speaks of what many today consider to be a theological re-hashing of the Fall of Humanity, he is actually referring to the idolatry of the pre-Christian Gentiles, as is revealed by the preceding paragraphs.

It should not be overlooked or ignored that the primary sin that Paul is speaking against here is not some modern concept of sexual orientation, but the sin of idolatry. The  “exchanging of natural intercourse [Greek: cresin, or use] for unnatural” among men and women is not the sin being committed, but is instead punishment meted out by God for the sin of worshiping false gods! Furthermore, David L. Balch observes that “Paul is not evaluating homosexual ‘relationships,’ a modern value, but judges the psychological state of the person experiencing addictive desire…Paul's terms desire, passion, inflame, appetite, and error suggest that he is critiquing unbridled eros, sexual passion.”[9] Paul, like many other ancient moralists, viewed homosexual activity as “the most extreme expression of heterosexual lust.”[10] This interpretation of the pericope holds that Paul was instead noting the consequences of idolatry; that is, the total abandonment of will to appetite. Indeed, the link between sexual promiscuity and gluttony has been well-explored by recent scholars:

Sexual desire and hunger for food were thought to be analogous. The pleasure or use of sex is to be limited by satisfaction, as a full stomach limits eating. The Greco-Roman question of sexual use does not ask about the gender of the subject or the object, does not ask whether the activity is homo- or heterosexual.[11] 

Women being inflamed with passion for women and men being inflamed with passion for men is not, then, the result of any innate, natural, sexual orientation that causes one to be attracted to a person of the same sex, but is instead the carrying out of a natural sexual drive to its depraved ultimate conclusion.

Finally, it is a tragic irony that those who utilize this very passage as fuel for the fires of judgment against the LGBTQ community apparently (and most unfortunately) read no further than the end of the first chapter of Romans. The very next portion of the letter contains the following admonition:

Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. You say, ‘We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.’ Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God? 

The same Paul who proclaims that the New Age of Christ has arrived, urging Gentiles and 

Jews alike to embrace one another as brothers and sisters, also writes to the Church in 

Galatia that “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no 

longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” This understanding of God 

as no respecter of persons bears a remarkable resemblance to Peter’s epiphany in Acts 10, 

as he preaches to Cornelius following his own vision regarding the acceptance of the 

profane: “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a 

Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.” As long 

as proof-texting is utilized by those perceived to be in power as a tool for marginalization 

and rejection of our gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters, the church 

will never be seen by the oppressed as the catalyst for the New Age of Christ that Paul 

envisioned it to be.

---

[2] For more on this, see Teresa J. Hornsby and Ken Stone, Bible Trouble: Queer Reading at the Boundaries of Biblical Scholarship (Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies) (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011), particularly Jione Havea‘s chapter, “Lazarus Troubles.”

[3] David L. Tiede, "Will idolaters, sodomizers, or the greedy inherit the kingdom of God : A pastoral exposition of 1 Cor 6:9-10." Word & World 10, no. 2 (March 1, 1990): 152.

[4] Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 39.

[5] Ibid, 40.

[6] Ibid, 41.

[7] Ibid, 45.

[8] Ibid, 47.

[9] Balch, David L. "Romans 1:24-27, Science, and Homosexuality." Currents In Theology And Mission 25, no. 6 (December 1, 1998): p 437.

[10] Victor Paul Furnish, “The Bible and Homosexuality,” in Homosexuality: In Search of a Christian Understanding, ed. by Leon Smith, p 13, quoted by Martin, p 49.

[11] Balch, 437.