Introduction: From the Legal Boundaries of the Old Testament to the "Final Judgment" of the New?
In our previous article, we used the perspectives of Professor Archie Chi Chung Lee and J. Harold Ellens to deconstruct the misreadings of Sodom and Leviticus in the Old Testament. We saw how the "Law of Hospitality" and the "Priestly Order" have been erroneously appropriated as weapons of homophobia.
However, many believers retreat to the final line of defense—the New Testament. They believe that even if the Old Testament laws have passed away, Paul's condemnation of "unnatural" acts and "men who lie with men" in Romans and 1 Corinthians constitutes an unshakable final verdict. But was this truly Paul's original intent? Or have we once again fallen into the trap of translation errors and cultural disconnects?
This article continues to integrate the academic insights of these two scholars, leading us into the Greek context of the New Testament and Paul's situational ethics to begin another revolution in interpretation spanning two millennia.
(I) Romans and the Power Structure of "Nature"
Romans 1:26-27 is the most frequently cited New Testament passage by the church, where Paul mentions men and women abandoning "natural relations" for those that are "unnatural."
1. "Sexual Orientation" or "Idolatry"?
Ellens points out that the structure of Romans Chapter 1 is crucial. Paul's argument begins with "the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people." The background of his condemnation is "idolatry"—people exchanging the glory of the immortal God for idols.
Paul believed that because the Gentiles worshipped created things (idols), God "gave them over" to their passions. In the Roman and Greek cultures of the time, idolatry was often accompanied by specific cultic sexual acts. Ellens argues that what Paul rebuked was that kind of chaotic sexual behavior which was part of "pagan rituals." To a Jew of that time (like Paul), this symbolized the total depravity of the Gentile world.
2. What Does "Nature" (Physis) Actually Mean?
Professor Archie Lee poses a critical hermeneutical question: Does Paul's use of "Nature" (Physis) refer to biological, genetic presets?
Professor Lee points out that in Paul's other epistles, we can see his understanding of "nature":
- 1 Corinthians 11:14: "Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him?"
Clearly, "nature" in Paul's eyes does not refer to genetics, but to culture, convention, custom, or socially agreed-upon behavior. In the culture of that time, men wearing long hair was considered "unnatural" (para physin).
Furthermore, Professor Lee suggests that the condemnation of female "unnatural" acts in Romans may involve "power hierarchies" in a social sense. In the framework of Paul's era, the man was the head of the woman (1 Cor 11:3). If a woman usurped this hierarchical system in sexual behavior, it constituted "unnaturalness" in a cultural sense. This is a discussion about social order and convention, rather than a critique of modern sexual orientation based on love.
(II) Greek Words Lost in Translation: Malakoi and Arsenokoitai
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, terms like "catamites" (孌童) and "sodomites/men who lie with men" (親男色) appear in Chinese Bibles. This seems to be "ironclad evidence" for condemning homosexuals. However, Professor Archie Lee's research reveals a surprising fact: translating these words as "homosexual" is a very recent phenomenon.
1. Malakoi: Effeminate or "Catamite"?
Professor Lee points out that Malakoi originally meant "soft" or "weak." In Bible translations prior to 1946 (such as the King James Version), this word was typically translated as "effeminate," referring to men lacking masculinity. Translating it as "catamite" (referring to the passive partner in a male-male sexual relationship) was a choice made by modern translators under specific theological leanings.
It is worth noting that the term "Luantong" used in the Chinese Union Version has undergone significant semantic changes in the century since the translation was published. In ancient Chinese, "Luan" meant beautiful, and "Luantong" originally referred to a handsome youth. At the beginning of the 20th century, when the Union Version was translated, the term was used to correspond to the terminology of that time regarding male-male sexual relations.
However, in a modern context, due to phonetic similarity in Chinese, this term is often misread as "pedophilia" (戀童癖) or viewed as a term carrying strong connotations of discrimination and sexual exploitation. Readers should understand that the usage in the Bible translation primarily refers to what the translators understood as "adult/adolescent male sex workers" or the "passive partner," which is distinct from the modern media's use of the term for child sexual abuse. We should avoid projecting modern labels directly back onto the discussion of ancient texts.
2. Arsenokoitai: Paul's Mysterious Neologism
Arsenokoitai is a compound word (man + bed). Professor Lee points out that Paul may have been the first person to use this word. However, in the writings of the early Church Fathers after Paul, this word was typically used to refer to socio-economic oppression or sexual assault and harassment, rather than a consensual relationship between two adults.
According to Professor Lee's investigation, English Bible translations did not use terms directly related to "sexual perversion/homosexuality" until 1946 (RSV). Prior to this, the Church's understanding of these words was more about "profligacy" or "exploitative male prostitution."
This means that the "biblical basis" used by contemporary churches to condemn same-sex partners is largely built upon the theological biases of modern translators.
(III) Ellens' Contextual Analysis: Against "Promiscuity" rather than "Commitment"
J. Harold Ellens provides a broader historical background. Paul lived in the era of Caligula and Nero—a world where sexual exploitation was rampant.
1. The Sexual Reality of the Roman Empire
What prevailed at the time was the sexual exploitation of slaves and children by adult males, or sexual acts performed as a "diversion" involving no emotional connection. The "same-sex acts" that Paul witnessed were linked to prostitution, violence, idolatry, and the trampling of the vulnerable.
2. The Core Charge: Porneia (Promiscuity/Boundlessness)
Ellens argues that the list of sins Paul enumerates in 1 Corinthians shares a common characteristic: Porneia (Promiscuity/Sexual Immorality).
This refers not only to sex but to a psychological and spiritual "loss of boundaries." Just as it is "spiritual promiscuity" for a person to overshare intimate information with a stranger, sexual acts performed without emotional connection, without commitment, and solely for the release of lust were considered "unrighteous" in Paul's eyes. What Paul opposed was sexual behavior that eroded personhood, lacked boundaries, and involved exploitation, rather than relationships within a "covenant of loyalty, commitment, and love" (Troth).
(IV) Jesus' Situational Ethics: The Best Antidote
Both Professor Lee and Ellens eventually return to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus reminds us: "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
1. Healing as the Final Standard
Ellens proposes that Jesus was a unique "situational ethicist." His criterion was: Does the action bring healing and life? Jesus repeatedly broke Sabbath laws and touched "unclean" people in order to restore them to "wholeness."
If we cling stubbornly to the prohibitions written in Paul's epistles in response to specific cultural contexts (idolatry, sexual exploitation) to hurt and exclude same-sex couples seeking stable love in modern society, we are repeating the mistake of the Pharisees—keeping the letter but killing the spirit.
2. From Law to Grace
Professor Lee emphasizes that the core of Pauline theology is "justification by faith," which is meant to liberate people from the bondage of the law. Paradoxically, the church today has "legalized" Paul's discussions on "cultural conventions," turning them into new chains.
Paul once said: "God also does 'unnatural' things" (Romans 11:24, referring to wild olive shoots being grafted onto a cultivated olive tree). If God's grace itself is "unnatural" (counter-cultural), what right do we have to use cultural conventions to limit God's acceptance of marginalized groups?
Conclusion: The Ultimate Purpose of Interpretation
Integrating the views of these two scholars, we can clearly see:
- The New Testament discussion of "nature" is built upon ancient cultural conventions and social hierarchies, not modern biology.
- What Paul condemned were sexual activities related to idolatry, sexual exploitation, and promiscuity (boundless behavior).
- The Bible says absolutely nothing about modern, stable, committed, and equal same-sex partnerships.
As Professor Archie Lee calls for, we should not turn a blind eye to the new experiences of love that the living God is manifesting in people today. The Bible is not meant to give us a set of rigid rules, but to invite us to use "mercy, justice, and love" as the keys to unlock new possibilities for life in every age.
Only then can the Bible truly become "Gospel" (Good News) for all humanity, regardless of sexual orientation.
Bibliography
Chinese Works
Lee, Archie Chi Chung. "From Biblical Interpretation to the Discussion of Homosexuality." In Crossing the Walls, Accepting Differences: The Challenge of Sexual Orientation Discrimination Legislation to Christians. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Christian Institute, 2006.
= 李熾昌。〈從聖經詮釋到同性戀課題之討論〉。載於《跨越圍牆，接納差異：性傾向歧視立法對基督徒的挑戰》。香港：香港基督徒學會，2006。
English Works
Ellens, J. Harold. Sex in the Bible: A New Consideration. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006.