Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #3

3. Usage and Meaning

Martin draws attention to its various usages in various contexts and claims that these contexts provide the interpretive clues to understanding this term. Martin cites one example where the term is found, “among vices related to economic injustice or exploitation.” And that is in the Jewish writing, Sibylline Oracles. Martin suggests that the term relates to some kind of economic exploitation relating to sex, but not necessarily homosexual activity. How Martin arrives at his understanding that this word pertains to sex, without appealing to some etymological understanding, we are not told. Furthermore, John J. Collins, an expert on the Sibylline Oracles suggests no hesitation in understanding, and translates, μὴ ἀρσενοκοιτεῖν, categorically as, “Do not practice homosexuality” (Sib. Or. 2:73).  When there are other ambiguous words in this writing, Collins provides some comment. But with regards to ἀρσενοκοίτης, he does not. This suggests that there is no ambiguity with regards to the meaning of this word. And contextual factors are obscured by the fact that this writing contains various interpolations that may have separated this section from its original context.

Next Martin appeals to the Acts of John, and makes the kind of argument that this relates to some kind of economic exploitation because it does not occur in contexts which discuss other sexual sins. However, what Martin fails to disclose is the context of the passage, and how critical editions of the Acts of John have translated this particular passage. J. K. Elliott’s, The Apocryphal New Testament, which provides a critical translation of these texts, offers the following translation: “In like manner the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, defrauder, sodomite, thief, and all who belong to that band, accompanied by your works you shall go into the fire that never shall be quenched, to utter darkness, to the pit of torture, and to external damnation” (Acts of John 36). The context is one of the apostle John pronouncing judgement on the men of Ephesus for various activities which shall incur the wrath of God. The list which contains various activities which are illustrative of pagan society that has rejected God and thus shall face judgement. The list is reminiscent of Romans 1:18-32, which is a standard Jewish critique of pagan practice culminating in a pronouncement of judgement by God.

What Martin fails to note, and we may only speculate why, is the specific Christian contexts in which this word is found. 1 Cor. 6:9, issues a list of activities that, if characteristic of the Christian life, will mean a forfeiting of God’s kingdom. In this list Paul appeals to several sexual sins, πόρνοι (illicit sexual activity); μοιχοὶ (adultery); μαλακοὶ (passive homosexual practice); ἀρσενοκοῖται (active homosexual practice). The context here is clearly sexual sins that if habitually practiced will entail a forfeiting of God’s kingdom.

Then, the list in 1 Tim 1:10, is prefaced by a statement affirming the goodness of Torah (1 Tim. 1:9), and then Paul offers a list that echoes various elements of the Torah, and perhaps even the Decalogue. This provides a contextual clue for how Paul understood ἀρσενοκοίται, and confirms the appeal to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. The Mosaic moral code is explicitly appealed to as an aid to instruct those who engage in the list of vices mentioned in these verses. The addition of the phrase, “and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me” (1 Tim 1:10-11), suggests that this list is not exhaustive, but rather illustrative of vices that are destructive for God’s people.

Finally, we may appeal to another specific from the early Christian letter of Polycarp, who writes the following to younger men in the city of Philippi.

Polycarp, Phil. 5:3

Similarly, the younger men must be blameless in all things; they should be concerned about purity above all, reining themselves away from all evil. For it is good to be cut off from the sinful desires in the world, because every sinful desire wages war against the Spirit, and neither fornicators nor me who have sex with men (whether as the passive or as the active partner - οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται) will inherit the kingdom of God, nor will those who do perverse things. Therefore one must keep away from all these things and be obedient to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. The young women must maintain a pure and blameless conscience.

The context given here is specifically that of sexual desires and activities that may defile the community. Polycarp appeals to the congregation to have self-control concerning these desires, and in a passage reminiscent of 1 Cor. 6:9, warns of the devastating consequences of those who participate in such activities.

Why has Martin not mentioned these contexts in his contextual analysis? Is it because it radically undermines his case that the word relates to economic exploitation? His case rests on one contextual case from the Sibylline Oracles which is plagued with textual issues, and experts who offer no comment on the supposed ambiguity of the word; one reference from the Acts of John, which does not help his case; and finally the avoidance of counter-evidence which directly undermines his case. Martin’s contextual argument has not been demonstrated, and fails to convince. Rather, a contextual analysis confirms the etymological analysis provided above, that this word was created with reference to Lev. 18:22 and 20:13, with which most scholars agree. Furthermore, this fits accurately within the context of Second Temple Judaism, with its overwhelming critique of homosexual practice.

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #2b

At this point we must cite the conclusion of Dan O. Via, a New Testament scholar who advocates for homosexual unions. 

I believe that Hays is correct in holding that arsenokoitēs refers to a man who engages in same-sex intercourse (Hays 1997, 97). The term is a compound of the words for “male” (arsēn) and “bed” (koitē) and thus could naturally be taken to mean a man who goes to bed with other men. True the meaning of a compound word does not necessarily add up to the sum of its parts (Martin 119). But in this case I believe the evidence suggests that it does. In the Greek version of the two Leviticus passages that condemn male homosexuality (Lev 18:22; 20:13) a man is not to lie with a male as with a woman each text contains both the words arsēn and koitē. First Cor 6:9-10 simply classifies homosexuality as a moral sin that finally keeps one out of the kingdom of God.

Dan O. Via and Robert A. J. Gagnon, Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003), 13.

Thus, there is no ideological bias here.  Our quest here is historical accuracy, with little thought for the practical consequences that follow from the conclusions reached. 

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #2

2. Etymology

ἀρσενοκοίτης is a compound word which is derived from two words, ἄρσην (male) and κοίτη (a bed; sexual promiscuity). To decipher it’s meaning, it would be helpful to look at other similar compound words. Wright provides a list of various compound words which have the -χοίτης suffix. These are, χλεψιχοίτης, refers to someone seeking illicit sex; δουλοχοίτης, refers to sexual relations with slaves; μητροκοίτης, to sexual relations with one’s mother; πολυχοίτoς, sexual relations with many people; and ἀνδρoχοίτoς, one who has sex with a man. These compounds are important to note, because they offer direct evidence against Martin, who claims that, “It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meanings of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts.” All of the above compound words gain their meaning from their component parts and thus do provide supporting evidence that there were many variations of the -χοίτoς, group that gained their meaning from their component parts. Thus Martin’s appeal to an etymological fallacy on the part of those who take this as a reference to same-sex activity is mistaken.

Wright’s list of compound words lists ἀνδρoχοίτoς, one who has sex with a man. This raises the question about why Paul used ἀρσενοκοίτης instead of ἀνδρoχοίτoς. The reason for this is clear when we see the origin of ἀρσενοκοίτης.

Lev. 18:22

•  καὶ μετὰ ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα γάρ ἐστιν
• You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Lev. 20:13

•  ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν
• If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

As you can see, the bold/underlined parts of the Greek phrase are strikingly similar, almost exactly so, to the word ἀρσενοκοίτης.  Hence, most scholars take this as the idiom from which the word ἀρσενοκοίτης was coined. As Wright notes, “If, as seems likely, the ἀρσενοκοίτ- group of words is a coinage of Hellenistic Judaism or Hellenistic Jewish Christianity, the probability that the LXX provides the key to their meaning is strengthened.” Thus, the component parts of the word contribute to its meaning, and the LXX references to Leviticus provide the origin and context of this specific word, both suggest that the meaning relates to male homosexual activity.

We may now explore whether there are further reasons to accept this basic understanding, or whether it gained some specific nuanced meanings in other contexts.

Arsenokoités - ἀρσενοκοίτης - Responding to Dale Martin #1

In this brief section I will offer critical comments on the meaning and usage of ἀρσενοκοίτης (and cognates), as well as a critical interaction with the proposal of Dale Martin.

1. Lexical Definitions

The first place to begin any serious investigation of biblical texts, is with the original languages. This raises several questions of interpretation and nuance in understanding the semantic range of particular words under consideration. When faced with the complexities of New Testament linguistic investigation, the student of these scriptures has several standard tools which have been tested through decades of scholarship and remain the standard and primary reference tools for scholars. These resources are periodically updated to keep up to date with the latest in scholarship, and they also represent a wide variety of ideological views, thus eliminating biased approaches. The quickest way to identity linguistic ambiguity in a given word, is to see the semantic range given by the various lexicons and dictionaries.

If there was ambiguity with the word ἀρσενοκοίτης, we would see this ambiguity reflected in the definitions offered by the following representative lexicons and dictionaries.

• BDAG, “A male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex.”

• Louw-Nida, “Male partner in homosexual intercourse – ‘homosexual.’”

• Balz & Schneider, “Referring to a male who engages in sexual activity with men or boys.”

• NIDNTT, “male homosexual, pederast, sodomite.”

• LSJ, “lying with men, N.T.”

• Gingrich, “one who engages in same-sex activity, sodomite, pederast.”

There is no ambiguity mentioned in any of the lexicons above, and these are the standard tools for academic lexical, philogical and semantic analysis. The only lexicon to offer any semantic range beyond that of same-sex activity, is Louw-Nida which suggests that, “It is possible that ἀρσενοκοίτης in certain contexts refers to the active male partner in homosexual intercourse in contrast with μαλακός, the passive male partner (88.281).”  Note, it says that it is possible, not that it always works like this.  Bruce Winter has provided a substantial argument for this position in 1 Cor. 6:9 [See B. W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth]. 

Next we'll offer a critique of Martin's appeal to the etymological fallacy. 

Communion - According to Paul - A Spiritual Encounter

Francis Watson in his excellent essay, ““I Received from the Lord. . .”: Paul, Jesus and the Last Supper,” makes the following opening comment which I thought was helpful.

“For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you, that the lord Jesus, on the night on which he was handed over, took bread. . .” (1 Cor. 11:23). By repeating a tradition the Corinthians already know, Paul seeks to reawaken their sense of awe in the presence of holy mysteries: the bread and the cup of the Lord's Supper, through which they participate in the Lord's own body and blood, imbued with the supernatural power of his risen life.[1] To eat this bread and to drink this wine as if they were ordinary bread and wine, heedlessly and without preparation, is to risk converting their life-giving power into a poison that causes weakness, illness, or death.[2] The abused bread and wine can become the agents of the Lord's judgment – a judgment that intends final salvation rather than condemnation but which one would still wish to avoid.[3] Some at Corinth are already guilty of an abuse of this kind, ungraciously going ahead with the meal without waiting for the whole congregation to be assembled.[4] By the time the latecomers arrive, the food and drink have all been consumed so that they are left hungry and humiliated. Perhaps those responsible will plead that the hour was late and that they too were hungry? In that case, they should have taken something to sustain them before they left home. Only when the whole congregation is gathered together can the Lord's Supper truly be celebrated. This apparently trivial discourtesy to fellow Christians is symptomatic of a more serious error, the failure to reckon with the invisible presence of the Lord himself in the sharing of bread and cup. The Last Supper tradition is fully integrated into the exhortations and warnings of 1 Cor. 11:17-34, since this tradition underlies Paul's point about the lifegiving yet potentially threatening holiness of its re-enactment as the Lord’s Supper.[5]

-----------------------------------------

[1] The Eucharistic bread and wine are “spiritual food” and “spiritual drink” (1 Cor. 10:3-4), in the sense that they enable participation in “the blood of Christ” and “the body of Christ” (10:16; cf. 11:27) – that is, in the heaven existence of the crucified and risen Lord who is “lifegiving Spirit” (15:45).

[2] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:28-30

[3] Cf. 1 Cor. 11:31-32.

[4] “So, my brothers and sisters, when you come together to eat, wait for one another” (1 Cor. 11:33). Going ahead with the meal without waiting for latecomers would be a specific instance of the unworthy consumption of the bread and the wine against which the preceding verses warn (vv. 27-32).

[5] Francis Watson, ““I Received from the Lord. . .”: Paul, Jesus and the Last Supper” in Jesus and Paul Reconnected: Fresh Pathways into an Old Debate. ed. Todd D. Still. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 103-105.

1 Cor 14:26 - Then & Now

Thanks to those who emailed me the articles, they were of great help.

I'm busy working on New Testament models of "worship gatherings" with a view to practical implementation. Personally, I'm glad that the NT doesn't give us an order of service. I like the variety of various churches. In fact, I would argue that variety is definitely needed.

I think what we need is to study the Scriptures and our context and negotiate what we deem the most essential elements and values of a Christian community, and then ask ourselves how we're going to put them together in a sustainable network of relationships that allows these elements and values to shape our praxis. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Here, I want to analyse one verse that has been put forward as an "Order of Service".

1 Cor 14:26 What follows, then, my dear friends? Suppose that when you assemble together each contributes a hymn, an item of teaching, something disclosed, or speaks in a tongue, or puts the tongues language into words, the point remains: “let everything serve the building up of the community.” [Thiselton]

It is strange that the reading of scripture, prayer, the Eucharist, the offering, baptisms, church discipline, and various other elements should not be mentioned. This should quickly alert us to the fact that Paul is here more focussed on the communal work of the Spirit and Spirit activities, especially on the use and abuse of “tongues in the assembly”, whereas at other times he will encourage other elements, such as the public reading of scripture (1 Tim 4:13).[1]

Paul’s overarching principle in all these matters has consistently been the well-being and benefit of the community. Everything is to be done for the building up of the community (14:3, 5, 12 and 26). Paul is more concerned about strengthening the body, and correcting various over-emphases than he is on describing an orderly pattern of gathering for worship. We would do well to remember this thought as we navigate through this pericope.

Some have suggested that this verse (14:26) amounts to an “order of service” or “the description of a typical gathering for worship.”[2] Others then take this further and declare that this is a call to participatory, open, and interactive meetings. “Everyone”, it is suggested, must have the opportunity to share, and “everyone” must bring “a psalm, a teaching, a tongue, a revelation, an interpretation” (NKJV). But this seems highly unlikely for several reasons, the simplest being 1 Cor 12. Here Paul has clearly articulated that each member of the body is different, has a different gift, and thus will contribute differently to the gathered community. Thus, those without the gifts of knowledge or wisdom, cannot contribute a teaching. Those without the gift of tongues, cannot contribute a tongue. Those without the gift of discernment or interpretation, cannot discern or interpret a tongue. In fact, Paul makes this even more emphatic when he notes in 1 Cor 12:27-30:

Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; then deeds of power, then gifts of healing, forms of assistance, forms of leadership, various kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?

The clear answer to the final verses here are, “NO!” So, the point of the verse? We’re all different, so expect different people, with different gifts, to do different things. Those without the gift of teaching, should not bring an “item of instruction”, since that could be disastrous for a community concerned with truth and accurate doctrine.

In fact, it seems rather pastorally insensitive of Paul to suggest that people move in gifts they don’t have. And in fact, placing to much emphasis getting people to share creates an unhealthy environment. Gifts emerge within appropriate contexts. In a theological conversation or setting, my gift emerges. In a business meeting with lots of administration, I have little or nothing to say. And when I have tried to contribute, people look at me like I’m an alien – because I’m moving beyond my gifting. This is clearly not what Paul has in mind.

The first thing to note is that Paul does not expect “everyone” to participate. The logistics of having 40 or more people sharing and participating would be impossible for the early Church. A few reasons for this would include: a) Christians had to work, and since they met on Sundays, which was a working day, most of these gatherings took place before or after work, i.e., before sunrise or after sunset. The length of time it would take for each person to participate would make it unlikely b) The word “everyone” should better be translated “each one”, and by that, given the context and content of 1 Cor 12, Paul means “each one” with a gift in a specific area. Thus, teachers (those recognised as having a teaching gift) should share. Prophets, (those with a recognised prophetic gift) should share, if they feel prompted to do so.

So verse 26 is definitely a call for participation, but it is a call to the participation of those with a gift in a particular or specified area. And this list is definitely not exhaustive, because look at how many vital elements are missing. It also means that those with gifts in other areas, won't share in the Christian gathering. Thus, those with the gift of mercy will probably use their gift most of the time outside the community. Those with the gift of administration will be busy before or after the gathering, but probably not during. Again, 1 Cor 12 notes that these gifts are still to be honoured, even though they’re not seen in “corporate” times of worship.

Now, this should also be set within the context that Paul encourages prophecy as a gift available to one and all. And thus, everyone with a word of prophecy should be given an opportunity to share. And if someone with another gift feels they want to share, this should be submitted to the leadership that it may be assessed and encouraged (1 Thess 5:12-22).

[1] Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, pg. 285

[2] Dunn, The Theology of Paul, pg. 583

Christology in 2 Cor 3:16-18

Chris Tilling crosses exegetical sabers with his supervisor Max Turner in a fascinating discussion of 2 Cor 3:12-18, specifically discussing 2 Cor 3:16-18.

12 Since, then, we have such a hope, we act with great boldness, 13 not like Moses, who put a veil over his face to keep the people of Israel from gazing at the end of the glory that was being set aside. 14 But their minds were hardened. Indeed, to this very day, when they hear the reading of the old covenant, that same veil is still there, since only in Christ is it set aside. 15 Indeed, to this very day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their minds; 16 but when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And all of us, with unveiled faces, seeing the glory of the Lord as though reflected in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit. [NRSV]

It's exegetical discussions like these that blogs are rather spectacular for. My ignorance persists as I try and understand the complexities of the issue and in a comment I've posed the following to Chris:

So how do you understand "The Lord is the Spirit"? Vs 18's "LORD" can refer to Jesus if Paul is arguing along the same lines as Rom 8:29 with regards to image. The question in my mind becomes, why switch from Christ in v14, to Spirit in v17, back to Christ in 18? This does appear to be a rather complex passage...

Matters are complicated for me by the fact that my commentaries on 2 Corinthians are all in New Zealand! (Martin & Barnett, and Witherington and Keener hardly deal with the matter in any depth and Harris is a tad expensive at the moment!) Keener does appear to suggest that image would naturally lead one to the image of Christ but does not engage in much discussion. Witherington notes the discussion, but argues that LORD refers to the Spirit (Conflict and Community in Corinth, pg. 382). Actually, Witherington's position seems likely, as likely as any other position! But now it appears that Gordon Fee has changed his mind in support of a Christological referent. This leaves us hungry for more: How will Chris [& Fee] argue that this has a Christological referent?

This is delicious side-track...

UPDATE

Looking through Plummer's old ICC Commentary on 2 Cor 3:16 and he is quite adamant that Lord refers to Christ (pg. 102). So Chris stands in good company. I wonder what the updated ICC, written by Thrall, does with this?