Discussing 1 Corinthians 6.9 in light of North Carolina’s Amendment 1

Thought this might be a good way to break the ice. What does the final two acts of sin mean?

Ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ἄδικοι θεοῦ βασιλείαν οὐ κληρονομήσουσιν; μὴ πλανᾶσθε· οὔτε πόρνοι οὔτε εἰδωλολάτραι οὔτε μοιχοὶ οὔτε μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται 

Go on… And, make sure you use relevant literature to define those words.

Joel L. Watts
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

3 thoughts on “Discussing 1 Corinthians 6.9 in light of North Carolina’s Amendment 1

  1. Actually, I’d like to be educated on the subject. Not just 1 Cor 6:9, but 1 Cor 6:2….”Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world?” I thought God was the judge, not “people”. I write this off as another example of Paul being a “loose cannon”, or maybe “loose canon”. Add it to women not being able to understand anything besides listening to their husband, slaves being nice to their masters, and celibacy. Paul should have continued persecuting Christians, instead of becoming one. He was at least effective at his previous job.

    1. I wrote this on another post.

      We cannot find those words in Scripture (including the LXX). Indeed, the closest use of those words are in Josephus (effeminate) and in the Oracles (‘homosexual’). Josephus, who has other ways of describing homosexuality, uses effeminate to describe men who do not want to fight because they would rather stay at home and make babies. In the Oracles, the closest use of the word which only the KJV seems to get right, means those who abuse little boys via rape. We know that pederasty was common in Roman and Greek culture and that Jesus had railed against it in the Gospels.

      Okay, so now I’ve showed you mine, show me yours. Where do you get the lexical prowess to suggest that those words have any relation to homosexuality, especially when at least one of those words were used to describe the Jews who didn’t want to fight Rome but stay home with their wives?

      Gary, I don’t think the Calvinists have treated Paul right and as such, we have inherited a Paul that not even he would have recognized. He actually condemned the view of women where they could only talk to their husbands. Celibacy was a personal choice, something he new he wouldn’t recommend for others. Further, the slaves being nice to their masters is not so much a command as it was a way to convert their masters and not have themselves murdered.

      Don’t cast Paul out just yet.

  2. Joel, interested more in your take, as my level of Greek is barely enough to fumble through the NT. And the more scholars I read and study on the matter, the more it just all seems like a big question mark, and so impossible to extricate from culture and context — i.e., how we can even do justice to the discourse, when for most of civilization history, culture has been ensconced in misogyny and patriarchy, to see truly with open eyes what really is.

Leave a Reply, Please!