. . . the word ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός are rare
in the OT. ἀρσενοκοῖται is a combination of two nouns. These two words, ἄρσην and κοίτη, are
directly related to the phrase ἄρσενος κοίτην in Lev.
20:13 and the first and last word of the clause ἄρσενος οὐ κοιμηθήσῃ κοίτην in Lev.
18:22. Thus, this compound word is properly created by Paul, like another
category of sinners, εἰδωλολάτραι (‘idolaters’), preceding it in 6:9, according to his
inherited Jewish tradition. Thus, it fulfils the criteria of word agreement and
rarity. On the question of availability, I have argued that allusions to Lev.
18 are already present in 1 Cor. 5 by the phrase ‘father’s wife’ as well as the
issue of incestuous union. Thus, it is not difficult for the Corinthian
audience to recognise the allusion of Lev. 18:22 again when they read this new
compound word ‘men-bed’ created by Paul—so, it passes the test of availability.
The plural noun ἀρσενοκοῖται in 1 Cor. 6:9 is properly understood as a reference
to males committing same-sex intercourse without qualification, or, simply,
practising male homosexuals.
Concerning the evil person, μαλακός, this
term is not found as a connotation of vice in Scripture. It denotes various
meanings in a nonmoral sense. However, the context of the vice list in 6:9–10
is helpful at least in two ways: (1) it is a vice, with its meaning is confined
to certain sinful acts, and (2) it is listed with other sins.
The word μαλακός connotes sin/vice, and in the context of listing
various condemnable sins can only be found in Philo’s De spec. leg. 3 (v. 31, 39, 40). It is expressed by a similar word,
μαλακίας, which denotes the acts these μαλακοὶ commit.
It satisfies the criteria of word agreement and rarity—in the context of vice
lists. Μαλακίας is mentioned in the context of Philo’s interpretation
of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue and Lev. 18. Thus, it is still indirectly
related to Scripture.
In vv. 31 and 39, μαλακίας is
associated with unmanliness ἀνανδρίας. In vv. 30–31, it is an interpretation of Deut.
24:3–6 about the sin of illicit remarriage—a man remarries his divorced wife.
There are two interesting points about μαλακίας here: (1) μαλακίας refers to
a voluntary sexual union of a person with his ex-wife—thus, μαλακίας does not
connote coercive and exploitive acts here; (2) it is improper to translate μαλακίας here as
effeminate or feminine because it is a negative comment against the first
husband who marries his ex-wife again. There is no evidence in the context to
indicate that he did it because he is feminine or effeminate. On the other
hand, both meanings of the terms μαλακίας and ἀνανδρίας can be derived from the following clause, ‘…
eliminated from his soul the hatred of evil’, and probably means loss of guilty
conscience in committing sin.
In vv. 39–40, Philo condemns pederasty (cf. 3.37).
Contrary to popular understanding, the most striking observation is that the
noun μαλακίας together with unmanliness (ἀνανδρίας) does not
describe the boys or penetrated men, but those men who have sex with boys. Philo condemns these boy-lovers as μαλακίας, not the boys:
And the lover of such may be assured that he is
subject to the same penalty. He pursues an unnatural pleasure and does his best
to render cities desolate and uninhabited by destroying the means of
procreation. Furthermore he sees no harm in becoming a tutor and instructor in
the grievous vices of unmanliness (ἀνανδρίας) and effeminacy (μαλακίας) by
prolonging the bloom of the young and emasculating the flower of their prime,
which should rightly be trained to strength and robustness … The reason is, I
think, to be found in the prizes awarded in many nations to licentiousness and
effeminacy (μαλακίας) … (Philo, De
spec. leg. 3.39–40 [Colson, LCL])
μαλακίας is
therefore unlikely to refer to boys or womanish male prostitutes but rather to the pederast, the active partner
(man) who penetrates the boy. Moreover, according to De spec. leg. 3.40, pederasty is regarded as boasting behaviour in
the social ethos.
Concerning the criterion of availability—whether or
not the audience could draw upon the meaning of μαλακίας in
Philo’s De spec. leg. 3—it is not as
certain as the allusion to the compound word ἀρσενοκοίτης in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. However, as Philo of Alexandria had been
appointed as the principal of the Jewish embassy to Rome in A.D. 39–40 and had
made apologetic defence for the Diaspora Jews in Alexandria against the
anti-Semitism of Gaius (Josephus, Ant.
18.259–60; cf. Philo, Legat.
1.239–354), he was probably well-known and respected among Diaspora Jews, in
particular in Corinth where there were frequent commercial activities with
Rome. One well-known achievement of Philo was his re-interpretation of the
Pentateuch in the language of Greek philosophy so that the Torah was made
sensible even to non-Jews. In addition to the fact that Apollos, another
influential leader and teacher in the Corinthian church, was a Hellenistic Jew
who came from and was probably educated in Alexandria (Acts 18:24; 19:1), he
had probably known Philo and had introduced his exegetical works to the
Corinthian Christians. Therefore, it is reasonable for the audience to consult
Philo’s commentary on the Ten Commandments when they heard Paul’s repeated
echoes of the Pentateuch in 1 Cor. 5, in particular echoes of Lev. 18 in 1 Cor.
5:1 and 6:9 (by the compound word ἀρσενοκοῖται).
In sum, the vice μαλακός
indirectly evokes the sixth commandment and Lev. 18. In the cultural ethos,
people in the upper social class boasted of their sexual relations (μαλακία) with
boys. In the list of various sins in De
spec. leg. 3, μαλακίας refers to adultery (3.30–31) or ‘boy-lovers’
(3.39–40). As Paul has already mentioned adulterers right before μαλακοὶ and it is
juxtaposed with males committing same-sex intercourse, μαλακοὶ in 1 Cor.
6:9 is probably translated as boy-lovers/pederasts in the context of 1 Cor.
6:9.
There has been much debate about whether Paul condemns
homosexual relations in 1 Cor. 6:9. One focus of the debate lies in the meaning
of these two virtually new words in the NT: ἀρσενοκοίτης and μαλακός. Dale Martin argues against the translation of this
word ἀρσενοκοίτης as a compound word derived from Lev. 18:22 and 20:13.
He argues that the semantic meaning of this word should be found in the
contemporary text of Paul: Sib. Or.
2.73. In Sib. Or. 2.73, this word is
also mentioned in the context of a vice list which is mainly related to social
injustice. Thus, Martin argues that the meaning of this word is related to
economic exploitation through sexual means. Concerning the meaning of μαλακός, Martin
concludes from his word study of μαλακός in ancient Graeco-Roman literature that ‘[T]here is
no question, then, about what malakos
referred to in the ancient world. In moral contexts it always referred either
obviously or obliquely to the feminine. The meaning of the word is clear, even
if too broad to be taken to refer to a single act or role. Malakos means “effeminate”.’
It seems that Martin’s interpretation is questionable.
Concerning his interpretation of ἀρσενοκοίτης:
1. Moral
instructions in Sib. Or. 2 are not
confined only to social justice but also include sexual purity, such as keeping
virginal purity and guarding love among all in 2.65. They are unrelated to
economic exploitation.
2. Besides book 3 and some portions of book 5,
there is no certainty for the Jewish provenance of other books of Sibylline
Oracles. Most scholars tend to regard the provenance of Sib. Or. 2 as Christian or Jewish work reworked by a Christian. In
other words, if there is any connection between Sib. Or. 2 and 1 Corinthians, it is a study about how 1 Corinthians
influenced Sib. Or. 2, not the other
way around.
3. It is not uncommon for Paul to create new
vocabulary by combining two words. Another new word, εἰδωλολάτραι, found earlier in 1 Cor. 6:9, is also a compound word, translated
literally as ‘idol-worshippers’. Like ἀρσενοκοῖται, it is
not found in the Jewish Scriptures, though the sin it conveys is apparent
according to the Torah.
4. The whole of 1 Cor. 5–6 resonates with OT
echoes, in particular the echo of Lev. 18:8 in 1 Cor. 5:1. It is thus
reasonable to assume that Paul also recalls the same chapter, Lev. 18 (v. 22 as
well as v. 13), for moral instructions of the Corinthian Christians.
Concerning his interpretation of μαλακός as
feminine or effeminate, Martin’s word study does not take into account the
semantic meaning of malakos in
Philo’s De spec. leg. 3.31–40, while De. Spec. leg. 3 bears the closest
parallel context with 1 Cor. 6:9–10: the context is that of listing condemnable
sinful acts. (Sin-pan Daniel Ho, Paul and the Creation of a Counter-Cultural
Community: A Rhetorical Analysis of 1 Cor. 5:1–11:1 in Light of the Social
Lives of the Corinthians [Library of New Testament Studies 509; London:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 113-17)
