Framing the Claim and the Task of Exegesis

The claim popularized by the “1946 Project” asserts that the modern English word “homosexual” was wrongly introduced into Bible translation in the twentieth century and that this supposed innovation distorted Christian teaching. The presentation promises to reveal how theology, history, culture, and politics led to a catastrophic mistranslation in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and it suggests that the Church’s moral stance rests on a modern error rather than on the apostolic text. This narrative resonates in a culture eager to align Scripture with contemporary sexual ethics. Yet the historical and linguistic evidence shows that the claim is mistaken. The question is not whether a nineteenth- or twentieth-century English word appears in earlier English Bibles; the question is whether Paul’s Greek terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 condemn male-male sexual practice as sinful behavior. When we follow the historical-grammatical method, attend to the Greek text, compare the Septuagint, survey representative early translations, and read Paul in his own argument, the answer is unambiguous.

The path forward is straightforward. We must situate Paul’s words within their literary unit, define the key Greek terms from their morphology, etymology, and usage, compare the terms with the Law given through Moses as Paul knew it in Greek, review how sober, formal-equivalence English translations handled those terms both before and after 1946, and address the claim that the apostle condemned only exploitative forms of male-male sex rather than all male-male sexual relations. Along the way we must also account for the history of the English term “homosexual,” why some translations used it and others did not, and why the choice of a particular English gloss does not change the moral meaning encoded by Paul’s inspired words. Jehovah chose to reveal His will in real human languages at specific moments in history. Our calling is to understand the meaning of those words as the original writers used them and as the first readers would have heard them, not to read back modern ideologies or to redefine plain speech so that it accommodates cultural desires.

Reading 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 in Its Flow

Paul’s admonition in 1 Corinthians 6:9 stands within a sustained ethical exhortation. The Corinthians were tolerating grievous sexual sin, engaging in lawsuits against fellow believers, and rationalizing behavior by misusing slogans. Paul reminds them that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God and lists representative vices. He intends a pastoral warning and a call to repentance, not a culture-war manifesto. His words are not isolated proof texts; they are part of a redeemed-life ethic grounded in union with Christ. Immediately after the vice list, Paul adds, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11, UASV). Paul proclaims both the reality of sin and the reality of transformation. He identifies patterns of behavior that, if embraced unrepentantly, exclude a person from inheriting the Kingdom, and he simultaneously magnifies Jehovah’s grace that cleanses, sets apart, and declares righteous those who turn to His Son.

The verse in question reads in a formal, transparent English rendering: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men of passive homosexual acts [μαλακοί, malakoí], nor men of active homosexual acts [ἀρσενοκοῖται, arsenokoîtai]” (1 Corinthians 6:9, UASV). The Greek nouns μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται stand side by side within a sexual-ethics cluster that also includes πορνοί (“fornicators”) and μοιχοί (“adulterers”). The semantic neighborhood is unmistakably sexual. Paul is not speaking of vague character flaws, nor is he addressing a narrow exploitative practice; he is naming categories of sexual behavior that contravene Jehovah’s moral will.

The Greek Terms: Morphology, Etymology, and Lexical Meaning

Paul’s two key words are nominative plural masculine nouns: μαλακοί (from the adjective μαλακός, “soft”) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (from the compound noun ἀρσενοκοίτης).

Μαλακός (malakós). In non-moral contexts the adjective means “soft,” as when Jesus speaks of “soft clothing” (Matthew 11:8). In moral discourse throughout the Greco-Roman world, however, it was a common label for an effeminate man or, more specifically within sexual talk, a male who plays the passive, penetrated role in male-male intercourse. Ancient moralists and satirists frequently used the term with this sexual connotation when cataloging vice. In a vice list such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, especially adjacent to ἀρσενοκοῖται, the moral sense is not “delicate” in the abstract; it is the effeminate/passive partner in male-male sex. Context and collocation control the sense. When Paul places μαλακοί between μοιχοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται, he signals a sexual vice category already familiar to his readers.

Ἀρσενοκοίτης (arsenokoítēs). This transparent compound fuses ἄρσην (“male”) with κοίτη (“bed,” a standard euphemism for sexual intercourse). The formation yields the straightforward sense “male-bedder,” that is, a man who beds males in sexual intercourse. The most plausible and widely recognized source for the compound is the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek Old Testament Paul read, used, and quoted, where Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit a man “lying with a male the bed of a woman.” In Greek, these prohibitions juxtapose the very elements ἄρσην/ἄρσενος (“male”) and κοίτη/κοίτην (“bed”). Paul did not coin a riddle whose meaning we cannot retrieve; he condensed the Levitical ban into a single, forceful label. The label is not a sub-species for a narrow exploitative practice; it names the class of behavior Leviticus prohibits—male with male in sexual intercourse.

The pairing of μαλακοί with ἀρσενοκοῖται therefore names both partners in a male-male act: the passive and the active. Paul’s list pattern is typical: related terms in sequence, tightening the net. To claim that one word refers only to exploitation while the other refers to a general lack of self-control ignores how Greek readers heard these nouns in vice lists and how the LXX background shapes the second term.

The Septuagint Bridge: Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Paul’s ethical categories are never far from Jehovah’s revealed Law. The apostle explicitly says that the Law is holy and good when used lawfully (Romans 7:12; 1 Timothy 1:8). He reads the Law Christologically and covenantally, but he does not void its moral core. The Greek of Leviticus, which influenced diaspora Jews and early Christians, renders the prohibition with the very building blocks Paul fuses in ἀρσενοκοίτης:

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is a detestable thing” (Leviticus 18:22, UASV).

“If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable thing” (Leviticus 20:13, UASV).

The LXX phrasing brings ἄρσην/ἄρσενος and κοίτη/κοίτην into contact: meta arsenos ou koimēthēse koitēn gynaikos (18:22); hos an koimēthē meta arsenos koitēn gynaikos (20:13). Paul’s compound ἀρσενοκοίτης is not accidental. By choosing this term he signals continuity with the Levitical moral standard regarding same-sex intercourse, just as he maintains continuity in condemning fornication and adultery. Because the Law addresses the act without limiting the prohibition to cultic exploitation, pederasty, or coercion, Paul’s derived term naturally applies to the behavior simpliciter—male-male intercourse—regardless of age differentials, payment, or mutual consent.

Early Translational and Lexical Witnesses

The history of early translation corroborates this reading. The Latin tradition rendered μαλακοί with molles (“soft/effeminate”) and ἀρσενοκοῖται with masculorum concubitores (“men who lie with males”), which, while euphemistic to modern ears, accurately expresses the passive/active pairing. Greek-speaking Christian writers retained the noun ἀρσενοκοίτης and its cognates as transparent moral vocabulary, and patristic homilies employed it in condemnations of male-male intercourse without limiting the term to exploitative scenarios. The Syriac tradition, employing idioms of “lying with males,” likewise treated the referent as the act of male-male intercourse. These are different languages and idioms, yet they converge on the same behavioral sense because they are translating the same Greek words.

English Translation Before and After 1946

The modern debate often gets skewed by focusing on one English word rather than on the underlying Greek. English Bibles before 1946 consistently translated μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται with clear, if sometimes euphemistic, phrasing that reflected the sexual sense understood by careful translators. The English Revised Version (1881) rendered “effeminate” for μαλακοί and “abusers of themselves with men” for ἀρσενοκοῖται. The American Standard Version (1901) followed the same pattern. “Effeminate” captured the passivity connotation of μαλακοί in sexual contexts. “Abusers of themselves with men” was a literalistic but accurate paraphrase of ἀρσενοκοῖται’s sense: men who take males to bed.

In the mid-twentieth century, when the English lexicon had a concise, recognized label for people who engage in same-sex sexual relations, the Revised Standard Version’s 1946 New Testament used “homosexuals.” That committee did not invent a new moral category foreign to Paul; it provided an English equivalent for the enduring meaning of the Greek words. Later RSV committee work in 1971 shifted phrasing (“sexual perverts”), a stylistic adjustment reflecting debates about idiom and connotation, not a reversal of moral meaning. Subsequent formal-equivalence translations have maintained the same sense in language accessible to contemporary readers. Some make the two roles explicit, using renderings like “passive homosexual partners” and “dominant homosexual partners.” Others use a single collective phrase, “men who practice homosexuality,” with a footnote explaining that the Greek terms refer to the passive and active partners in male-male sex. The Updated American Standard Version helpfully states “men of passive homosexual acts [μαλακοί]” and “men of active homosexual acts [ἀρσενοκοῖται],” making explicit what Paul’s pair encodes.

The claim that “homosexual” did not appear in Bibles before 1946 is a half-truth leveraged rhetorically. Of course a technical term that entered English through medical-legal discourse in the late nineteenth century would not appear in many English Bibles of the 1800s; translators reached for idioms their audiences understood. But those idioms communicated the same moral meaning: male-male sexual intercourse, with attention to both partners’ roles. Where some contemporary versions now speak more directly, earlier versions used accepted euphemisms. The difference is stylistic, not semantic.

Why Euphemism Does Not Change Meaning

Bible writers commonly used euphemisms for sexual acts. To “know” someone and to “uncover nakedness” are well-attested idioms for sexual relations. Translators face a choice: preserve the idiom (“uncover nakedness”) or render the idiom with a direct English equivalent (“have sexual relations”). Formal, word-for-word translations often preserve the idiom; dynamic-equivalence versions state the sense plainly. Neither approach invents a new meaning; both convey the same referent with different stylistic decisions. Leviticus 18:19 illustrates the point. A dynamic rendering says, “Do not have sexual relations with a woman during her period of menstrual impurity,” while a formal rendering preserves the Hebrew idiom, “You shall not approach a woman to uncover her nakedness during her menstrual uncleanness.” The referent is the same; the style differs. In the same way, “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with men” communicated what “passive partners” and “men who practice homosexuality” communicate today. The notion that post-1946 translators introduced a new moral category is historically and linguistically untenable.

The History of the English Word “Homosexual” and Why It Does Not Drive Exegesis

The English word “homosexual” entered the language via German scholarship in the late nineteenth century and gained wider currency in the early twentieth century. It functioned as a label for a known phenomenon: sexual relations between persons of the same sex. Early usage sometimes carried clinical or pejorative connotations different from today’s usage, but the referent—the behavior—has not shifted. Translators who used “homosexual” did so because it had become the ordinary, concise term for the behavior named by Paul’s Greek. Whether a translator chooses “men who have sex with men,” “men who practice homosexuality,” “sodomites,” or “men who bed males,” the criterion is fidelity to the Greek. Counting appearances of one English label across centuries is not exegesis. The question is whether the translation communicates Paul’s meaning. When a modern translation renders ἀρσενοκοῖται with “men who practice homosexuality,” it is not importing a twentieth-century ideology into the first century; it is expressing in current English the moral category Paul encoded, a category rooted in Jehovah’s moral Law revealed in Leviticus.

The Lexical and Syntactic Case Against Narrowing ἀρσενοκοῖται to Exploitation

A popular attempt to blunt Paul’s condemnation insists that ἀρσενοκοῖται refers only to exploitative forms of male-male sex—pederasty, coercion, or temple prostitution. This narrowing fails on multiple fronts.

First, the etymology points to the act, not to the social arrangement. “Male-bedder” names the behavior without specifying age or coercion. When Greek compounds specify exploitation or age, they typically include elements that denote those features. Paul’s term does not.

Second, the collocation with μαλακοί in a sexual vice list points to the two roles in male-male intercourse: passive and active. The pairing names participants across the spectrum, not a single exploitative scenario. If Paul had intended to condemn only prostitution or pederasty, he could have used terms readily available in the moral vocabulary of his world, such as words denoting pederastic practice or coercion.

Third, the LXX background in Leviticus condemns the act as such. The Law does not limit the prohibition to exploitative relationships; it forbids a man lying with a male as he lies with a woman. The moral logic is creational and categorical, not situational and exploitative. When Paul forges ἀρσενοκοίτης from the LXX phrasing, he brings that categorical prohibition into his vice list.

Fourth, Paul’s broader sexual ethic reinforces the same conclusion. In Romans 1:26–27 he speaks of both women and men who exchanged natural relations for what is contrary to nature, describing men who “burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful” (UASV). The language emphasizes mutuality and desire, not coercion. The condemnation rests on a creation-order violation, not on power imbalance alone. This fits the way Jehovah’s Law addresses sex: it is bound to creation, covenant, and holiness, not to mere consent-based categories.

Fifth, Paul uses ἀρσενοκοῖται again in 1 Timothy 1:10 within a list arranged along the lines of the Ten Commandments. There, the term appears in the section corresponding to sexual violations. The repeated use of the same rare compound in two letters confirms its stability in Paul’s idiolect as a label for male-male intercourse. No contextual cue narrows the term to exploitation.

Romans 1:26–27 as the Theological Frame

Paul’s most extensive reflection on same-sex relations appears in Romans 1:26–27. He describes women who exchanged natural relations for what is against nature and men who abandoned natural relations with women and burned with desire for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error (UASV). The language is general and reciprocal. It does not focus on exploitation or cult. It grounds the judgment in creation (“natural”) and in the Creator’s design. This passage supplies the theological frame within which 1 Corinthians 6:9 sits. The vice list names particular behaviors; Romans 1 explains why those behaviors violate Jehovah’s moral order.

Jude 7 and the Canon’s Coherent Witness

Jude 7 offers an additional canonical witness: “Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross sexual immorality and went after different flesh, are exhibited as an example, undergoing the punishment of eternal fire” (UASV). Whatever other sins characterized Sodom, Jude explicitly identifies sexual immorality and pursuit of “different flesh,” signaling a transgression of created order. The New Testament thus presents a coherent moral vision regarding same-sex relations. It is inaccurate to dismiss this witness as a mere misreading of an ancient hospitality code. The apostolic writers ground their judgments in the holiness of Jehovah, the order of creation, and the moral Law that reflects His righteous character.

The Vice List in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10: Structure and Function

Paul’s vice list is neither exhaustive nor arbitrary. It gathers emblematic sins that marked the pagan world around Corinth and that threatened the congregation from within. The list includes sexual sins (fornication, adultery, male-male intercourse), religious sins (idolatry), and social sins (theft, greed, drunkenness, reviling, swindling). The command “Do not be deceived” warns that self-deception is endemic when culture normalizes vice. He then adds, “And such were some of you” (6:11), showing that the congregation in Corinth included former practitioners of every listed sin. This is not a special class of untouchables; it is a catalogue of behaviors from which Jesus Christ rescues sinners. Paul’s emphasis on washing, sanctifying, and justifying underscores the transformative power of the good news. Those who turn from sin and entrust themselves to the Son of God are cleansed, set apart, and declared righteous by Jehovah. The congregation must therefore speak with conviction about sin and with equal conviction about grace. Neither silence nor celebration honors the truth.

Why the “1946” Narrative Fails

The cinematic narrative suggests that a committee decision in 1946 introduced the term “homosexual” into 1 Corinthians 6:9 and thereby birthed an anti-gay posture among conservative Christians. This retelling misleads at multiple levels. Historically, pre-1946 formal translations articulated the same moral meaning with idioms such as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with men.” These phrases were ordinary English ways of naming the passive and active partners in male-male intercourse. Linguistically, “homosexual” is simply a modern English shorthand for the behavior Paul condemned with μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται. Whether a translator uses that label or a descriptive phrase, the referent remains Paul’s target: male-male sexual acts. Theologically, Paul’s sexual ethic flows from creation, Law, and good news. He does not innovate in 1 Corinthians 6:9; he applies a consistent biblical morality that honors Jehovah’s design for male and female in marriage and condemns all sexual behavior outside that covenant, including fornication, adultery, and male-male intercourse. To suggest that this ethic arose from twentieth-century American politics ignores two millennia of Christian moral teaching and the biblical sources that ground it.

Koine Greek, Papyri, and the Growth of Lexical Precision

The twentieth century brought an explosion of Koine Greek resources due to the discovery and publication of papyri from Egypt. Contracts, letters, receipts, and personal notes illuminated daily language and sharpened lexical judgments. This growth did not overturn Christian sexual ethics; it refined our understanding of usage and nuance. The papyri confirmed that μαλακός could function as a moral term for effeminacy and softness in vice contexts and that transparent compounds like ἀρσενοκοίτης carried the force of their elements in predictable ways. The more scholars read the language of the street and the marketplace, the clearer these semantic contours became. Increased philological knowledge strengthened, rather than weakened, the case that Paul’s terms condemn male-male sexual practice.

Translation Philosophy and Modern Renderings

Translators choose between more literal and more interpretive approaches. Formal equivalence prioritizes lexical transparency and syntactic correspondence; functional equivalence prioritizes receptor-language clarity. When a formal translation uses “men who practice homosexuality,” it is not adding a modern idea; it is selecting idiomatic English that most readers will understand immediately. When another formal translation retains the pair “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with men,” it preserves historical idiom that may require a footnote for modern readers. Functional versions might opt for “passive and active partners in male-male sex.” These are not different moral visions; they are different strategies for communicating the same apostolic condemnation to audiences with different linguistic expectations. The UASV’s “men of passive homosexual acts” and “men of active homosexual acts” renders the roles explicit to prevent the very misunderstanding that the “1946” narrative exploits.

Addressing Frequently Raised Rejoinders

One rejoinder says, “Paul could not have known about loving, mutual same-sex relationships as we understand them today.” This objection confuses knowledge with approval. Ancient literature shows a spectrum of male-male relations: pederastic, commercial, and companionate. Roman poets and moralists acknowledged affection between males. The novelty of the modern West lies not in the existence of affection but in society’s moral approval. Paul speaks to the act on creational and moral grounds, not on the presence or absence of affection. Consent does not redefine what Jehovah declares contrary to nature.

A second rejoinder insists that Paul condemned only exploitative behavior because of the prevalence of pederasty. As shown above, the language Paul chooses—shaped by Leviticus—names the act across contexts. When Scripture condemns particular exploitative forms of sex (for example, rape), it uses terms that denote force or abuse. Paul does not do so here. He places male-male sex in the broader category of sexual immorality alongside fornication and adultery, both of which can be consensual yet sinful.

A third rejoinder claims that “homosexual” as a modern identity category should not drive translation. On this point there is agreement in principle: translation must reflect behavior, not modern identity constructs. That is why careful translations focus on acts and roles: “men who practice homosexuality,” “men who lie with males,” “passive partners” and “active partners.” The Bible addresses behavior and desire under the moral Law of Jehovah. When English uses “homosexual” in a behavioral sense, it communicates the biblical target. When “homosexual” is heard primarily as an identity label, translators often prefer a more descriptive phrase to avoid confusion.

The Lawful Use of the Law in 1 Timothy 1:8–11

Paul writes that “the law is good, if one uses it lawfully” (1 Timothy 1:8, UASV). He then offers a vice list that roughly follows the contours of the Ten Commandments. Within the segment corresponding to sexual sin, he includes ἀρσενοκοῖται. This placement confirms that he sees the Levitical prohibition as part of the enduring moral Law that exposes sin and drives sinners to the good news. The term does not float free as a vague insult; it anchors to the revealed will of Jehovah that defines sexual holiness.

Distinguishing “Men Who Lie With Males” From Temple Prostitution

Another attempt to limit Paul’s condemnation appeals to ancient temple prostitution, suggesting that the term ἀρσενοκοῖται names a cultic role rather than an act. In the Hebrew Scriptures, however, distinct terms denote cult prostitutes, and careful translations render those passages accordingly. Paul’s vocabulary in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is not the language used for cult prostitution. It is the language derived from the Levitical prohibition of male-male intercourse. Nothing in the context of 1 Corinthians or 1 Timothy restricts his condemnation to cultic settings. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is addressing congregational holiness in the midst of a sexually permissive city, not reforming pagan temple practices.

Archive Letters and Committee Debates Cannot Overrule the Greek

Popular accounts sometimes cite letters or committee discussions to argue that Bible translators recognized a “mistake” in 1946 and promised to correct it. Even if committees debated idiom and connotation—as translation committees always do—such anecdotes do not overturn the lexical and contextual case. Committees refine English style; they do not change Paul’s Greek. Where later editions adjusted wording, they did so within the same moral field, often replacing a newly controversial term with another that they judged clearer or less liable to misconstrual. To elevate a committee anecdote above the inspired text reverses authority. Our doctrine of Scripture requires the opposite: committees serve the text; the text does not serve committees.

The Creation Mandate and the Coherence of the Canon

From Genesis onward, Scripture presents marriage as the covenantal union of one man and one woman, ordered toward companionship and, where Jehovah grants it, fruitfulness, guarded by chastity outside marriage and fidelity within. The prohibitions of Leviticus protect this created order. Jesus affirms the creation pattern in His teaching on marriage, rooting it in “the beginning” when Jehovah made them male and female. The apostolic letters apply this moral order to Greco-Roman contexts awash in sexual permissiveness. When the canon speaks to male-male intercourse, it does so consistently and clearly: it is sin. The canon never describes such acts as holy, never blesses them, and never treats them as morally indifferent. Paul’s vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:9 rests comfortably within this canonical pattern.

Pastoral Clarity and Gospel Hope

The congregation must speak with the clarity of Scripture. Jehovah calls sexual sin what it is: a departure from His design for male and female and from the holiness He requires. Yet we must also speak with the warmth of the good news: “And such were some of you.” Paul held out hope to fornicators, adulterers, and those engaged in male-male intercourse, not by celebrating behavior, but by proclaiming a Savior Who washes, sanctifies, and justifies. Christians must reject mockery and hatred. We must also reject the deception that approval equals love. Genuine love tells the truth and invites all sinners, whatever their pattern of sin, to repent and trust the Son of God, Who grants forgiveness and sets people free to obey. Transformation is not self-reform; it is new life grounded in Christ’s atoning sacrifice and empowered through the Word that the Holy Spirit inspired.

Why “Men of Passive Homosexual Acts” and “Men of Active Homosexual Acts” Faithfully Render Paul

The UASV’s rendering “men of passive homosexual acts [μαλακοί]” and “men of active homosexual acts [ἀρσενοκοῖται]” makes explicit what Paul’s Greek pair encodes. The clarity is helpful in an age when “effeminate” no longer carries the sexual sense it once did and when “homosexual” is often heard as an identity rather than as a behavioral descriptor. This translation strategy neither adds to Paul nor diminishes him; it makes the roles explicit so that modern readers grasp the apostle’s target immediately. Where earlier English conventions used euphemism for modesty, such explicitness helps prevent the very misunderstanding the 1946 narrative trades upon.

“Do Not Be Deceived” and the Stakes of Sexual Ethics

Paul’s admonition, “Do not be deceived,” appears where cultural pressure tempts believers to rationalize behavior. Sexual sin especially invites self-deception because it co-opts desire, affection, and the body’s design. The apostle warns that those who unrepentantly practice the listed sins “will not inherit the kingdom of God.” The inheritance language is eschatological and covenantal. It does not deny the possibility of repentance and change, but it does deny that persistent rebellion can coexist with saving faith. Christians who adopt an ethic that affirms what Jehovah forbids must reckon with Paul’s warning. The choice is stark: either we submit to the Word that the Holy Spirit inspired, or we conform Scripture to the spirit of the age.

The Role of Phrasing in English Without Shifting Meaning

Some object that different English renderings—“homosexuals,” “sodomites,” “men who practice homosexuality,” “passive partners,” “active partners”—must represent different meanings. In reality, these are attempts to communicate one source meaning to varied receptor audiences over time. English has changed in how it labels sexual behaviors and identities. Formal-equivalence translations tend to avoid identity language and instead describe acts, precisely to keep attention on behavior rather than on a modern psychological category. The underlying referent is stable: male-male intercourse is sin. The decision to use a compact term or an explanatory phrase is a matter of pastoral wisdom and readability, not a capitulation to ideology.

What the Corinthians Would Have Heard

The Corinthians lived in a city infamous for sexual permissiveness. Vice lists with sexual vocabulary were not foreign to them. When they heard the paired nouns μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται grouped with πορνοί and μοιχοί, they would not have thought of abstractions like “soft-willed” and “general sexual vice.” They would have recognized standard labels used in moral discourse to condemn male-male sexual roles alongside fornication and adultery. Paul’s subsequent argument in 6:12–20 reinforces this, focusing intensely on the body, sexual union, and holiness. The apostolic concern is the sanctification of bodies redeemed by Christ. Male-male intercourse is a specific violation of that sanctification, as is any sexual act outside the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman.

Mercy Without Redefinition

Truth and mercy are never enemies in Scripture. Jehovah’s commands are good, and His mercy is wide. The congregation must welcome any person who seeks the Savior, and we must preach repentance and faith without discrimination. At the same time, mercy never requires us to rename sin as righteousness. When translators and teachers refuse to flatten μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται into harmless generalities, they are not advancing hatred; they are guarding souls with the very warning the apostle gave. When believers testify that “such were some of you,” they magnify the grace of God in Jesus Christ, Who forgives and renews. This balance—moral clarity and gospel hope—is precisely what 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 provides. It is what faithful congregations have proclaimed long before 1946 and what they must continue to proclaim today.

You May Also Enjoy

How Should Christians Biblically Respond to Issues of Sexual and Gender Identity?

What Does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality?

I’m Attracted to the Same Sex—Does That Mean I’m Gay?

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS