I am far from the only gay Christian who has heard the claim that gay people will not inherit the kingdom of God. That message is plastered on protest signs at gay-pride parades. It’s shouted by roaming street preachers at busy intersections and on college campuses. The result is that, for many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people, all they’ve heard about the kingdom of God is that they won’t be in it.
So far, we’ve focused on big-picture issues such as tradition, patriarchy, passion, and nature. But in this chapter, we’ll go to the heart of a message that damages the witness of Christians and gives LGBT people a damaged perception of God. We’ll explore the original meanings of terms that are used to tell gay people they’ll be excluded from God’s kingdom.
And it involves just two words.
How we understand these words has a very real impact on millions of people, so an in-depth study is worth our time. Since I am not a linguist, and you most likely don’t read ancient Greek, we will use plenty of supporting examples to assist us.
The crucial words that we’ll examine appear in Paul’s first letter to the church in Corinth. As it’s translated in the King James Version of the Bible, Paul wrote:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–10)
Here, Paul listed ten types of people whose unrighteous conduct prevents them from inheriting God’s kingdom. (A similar list in Ephesians 5:3–5 uses even more sweeping language, saying that no one who is “immoral, impure or greedy … has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.”)
In our time, the debate over gay Christians centers on the question of whether same-sex relationships are sinful. So two of the terms used in this passage are important for our discussion. Malakoi here is translated “effeminate,” and arsenokoitai is translated “abusers of themselves with mankind.” In recent years, many Bible translators have chosen to render one or both of these terms as references to gay people or gay relationships.
For example, the English Standard Version translates the terms as “men who practice homosexuality.” The New American Standard Bible says “homosexuals.” The New Living Translation says “those who … are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality.” Given the prevalence and impact of such translations today, let’s look at the arguments and ideas that have influenced them.
THE GREEK WORD MALAKOI (“EFFEMINATE”)
Malakos (the singular of malakoi) was a commonly used term in ancient Greek. It literally means “soft,” and it appears elsewhere in the New Testament to describe fine clothing (see Matthew 11:8).
In a moral context, the term was used to describe a lack of self-control, weakness, laziness, or cowardice. Based on the writings we reviewed earlier, I doubt you’ll be surprised to learn that the word was an all-purpose insult for anything considered to be feminine. That’s why it was long translated as “effeminate” rather than “soft.”1
Women, remember, were thought to lack control over their appetites and emotions, whereas men—or at least “real” men—were seen as models of temperance and reason. Cicero bluntly expressed prevailing views of femininity when he gave this advice: “Everything comes down to this: that you rule yourself.… [Do not] do anything in a base, timid, ignoble, slavelike, or womanish way.”2 Seneca, too, explained, “If I must suffer illness, it will be my wish to do nothing out of control, nothing effeminately.”3
For writers of Paul’s day, to be effeminate was to be weak and out of control. That shortcoming wasn’t necessarily related to sexual behavior, so most activities that were derided as being “soft” were not sexual. Things such as gambling, greed, and vanity were called “soft,” as were drunkenness and a fondness for fine foods.4 A number of ancient writers used the term malakoi to condemn men for their laziness, cowardice, and extravagance.5
Weakness and excess could involve sexual conduct, of course. Some men who engaged in same-sex behavior were indeed mocked as malakoi—specifically, men who willingly submitted to penetration. On that basis, many biblical translators in recent decades have translated the term as a condemnation of homosexuality, or at least a condemnation of men who take the passive role in same-sex relations.
But there are problems with that interpretation. First, as I mentioned, most uses of the word malakos were not related to sexual behavior. But even if we look only at the word’s sexual uses, “passive same-sex behavior” still is not the word’s most likely meaning. The word malakos was actually more frequently applied to men who succumbed to the charms of women.
For those of us living in societies that generally equate any same-sex attraction in males with effeminacy, that idea can seem puzzling. From our standpoint, the more aggressively a man pursues a woman, the more masculine he seems. And if he’s at all interested in other men, he’s expected to be effeminate. But ancient societies didn’t share these expectations, largely because they didn’t distinguish between heterosexuality and homosexuality as sexual orientations in the first place. As I noted in earlier chapters, their main concern was whether people conformed to expected gender roles.
• Men were strong. Women were weak, or “softies.”
• Men were courageous. Women were cowardly.
• Men were dominant. Women were submissive.
• Men were models of restraint. Women lacked self-control.
If a man did anything that was typically associated with women, he opened himself to the charge of being a malakos. That could even involve his overzealous pursuit of women, as it could betray his “effeminate” lack of self-control.6
Odd as it sounds to us, the concept of an “effeminate womanizer” was commonplace in ancient literature. In a second-century BC Roman comedy, for instance, a male suitor dismisses his rival as a “soft womanizer who has his hair in ringlets, who lives in the shade, [and] who plays a tambourine.”7 Seneca the Elder, a contemporary of Paul, leveled similar invective at a man consumed by his passions for women. Seneca wrote, “Dripping with foreign perfumes, crippled by his lusts, walking more softly than a woman in order to please women—and all the other things that show not judgment but disorder” (emphasis added).8
Being “soft” in a sexual sense meant that a man was self-indulgent and enslaved to his passions. He was ruled by someone or something other than himself. In that sense, being passive in same-sex relations and falling head over heels in love with a woman both were markers of effeminacy.
A man’s falling prey to a woman’s charms, in some quarters, could invite even worse censure than sexual passivity with males. After all, men who allowed other men to dominate them were “acting like women,” but at least they were still under the control of a man. But if a man fell under a woman’s thrall, he had succumbed to the definition of weakness.
This perspective, I should note, did not hold true for men who had sex with women but kept control of their emotions in the process. It applied only to men who were seen as excessively doting on women. Even the famed Roman general Pompey was criticized for excessive devotion to his wife. As Plutarch put it, Pompey “weakly succumbed to his passion for his young wife, devoting himself almost exclusively to her … and neglecting affairs of the forum.” His behavior inspired mockery of him as “the general with no self-control.”9 Likewise, in Plutarch’s Dialogue on Love, forms of the word malakos are applied to men who love women.10
So even the sexual sense of malakos doesn’t necessarily refer to same-sex behavior. In fact, reading it as a reference to same-sex behavior is a recent trend in biblical interpretation. Most English Bible translations prior to the twentieth century that deviated from the term effeminate translated the word as a general injunction against wantonness, not a specific condemnation of same-sex behavior. Note how malakos was translated in these Bible versions:
• “weaklinges” (1525, Tyndale New Testament)
• “wantons” (1587, Geneva Bible)
• “debauchers” (1852, James Murdock translation)
• “licentious” (1904, Ernest Malan translation)
• “sensual” (1923, Edgar Goodspeed translation)
New Testament scholar David Fredrickson has argued that malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 be translated as “those who lack self-control.”11 Based on the evidence, that translation stands on firmer footing than any interpretation that defines the word as a specific reference to same-sex behavior. As we’ve seen, malakoi doesn’t refer to merely a single act. It encompasses an entire disposition toward immoderation.
But even if malakoi doesn’t usually refer to same-sex relations, there is a second crucial word to contend with. According to some non-affirming Christians, even if malakoi on its own is ambiguous, we should understand it as a condemnation of same-sex relations given the word that follows it in 1 Corinthians 6. That word is arsenokoitai.
THE GREEK WORD ARSENOKOITAI (“ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND”)
The word arsenokoitai (the plural of arsenokoites) was used very rarely in ancient Greek writings. In fact, Paul’s use of the word in 1 Corinthians 6 is widely considered to be its first use in ancient literature. Afterward, the term appears mostly in lists of vices, which are of limited help in determining its meaning. Unlike malakoi, though, the term arsenokoitai was understood by Bible translators before the twentieth century to refer to same-sex behavior.
In Greek, arsen means “male” and koites means “bed,” typically with a sexual connotation. Given the meaning of those words, some argue that arsenokoitai must mean “men who sleep with other men,” encompassing a condemnation of non-celibate gay men.
But the argument breaks down in two key places. First, the component parts of a word don’t necessarily tell us what it means. The English word understand, for instance, has nothing to do with either “standing” or being “under.” If a person learning English as a second language tried to figure out the meaning of understand only by considering its component parts, she would be led far astray.
Some non-affirming Christians seek to avoid this difficulty by connecting arsenokoitai to the prohibition of male same-sex intercourse found in Leviticus 20:13. In the earliest Greek translation of that verse, the words arsenos koiten appear next to one another. So it’s possible that Paul coined the term arsenokoitai based on his familiarity with the Greek translation of Leviticus 20. If so, he likely was using the word to condemn some form of same-sex behavior.
But if this is the case, another possibility crops up. As we saw in chapter 2, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were pederasty, prostitution, and sex between masters and slaves. Pederasty, in fact, was so common that Philo described it simply as the union of “males with males.” He rightly expected his readers to grasp his specific reference despite the generic nature of his word choice. Given the prominence of pederasty in the ancient world, Paul may have been taking a similar approach through his use of the word arsenokoitai.12
So even if the compound arsenokoitai did originate from Leviticus, that still wouldn’t tell us what it means in 1 Corinthians 6. As New Testament scholar Dale Martin has written, “The only reliable way to define a word is to analyze its use in as many different contexts as possible.”13
Although arsenokoites was used quite rarely in Greek literature after Paul, some of the few uses that have survived indicate it most often referred to economic exploitation, not same-sex behavior. Given how frequently this word is used to condemn the intimate relationships of gay people today, it’s important that we gain clarity on its meaning in 1 Corinthians 6. To help, let’s look at three uses of the word in ancient writings.
An ancient text known as the Sibylline Oracles includes a form of the word arsenokoites in a section describing violations of justice. The relevant portion reads: “Do not steal seeds. Whoever takes for himself is accursed to generations of generations, to the scattering of life. Do not arsenokoitein, do not betray information, do not murder. Give one who has labored his wage. Do not oppress a poor man.”14
No other injustice in this section is related to sexual behavior. But the Sibylline Oracles does denounce a list of sexual vices later on, and the word arsenokoites is noticeably absent from that list. Why would the word not be repeated in that context if it had been understood to describe a primarily sexual offense?
Similarly, a second-century text called the Acts of John lists the word arsenokoites in the context of economic exploitation and power abuses. This text warns: “And let the murderer know that the punishment he has earned awaits him in double measure after he leaves this (world). So also the poisoner, sorcerer, robber, swindler, and arsenokoites, the thief and all of this band.” The section ends with a declaration that “eternal misery and torment” await “kings, rulers, tyrants, boasters, and warmongers.”15 The Acts of John also lists sexual sins in a separate section, and arsenokoites doesn’t appear there. As in the first text, the word appears only among vices involving economic injustice and abuses of power.
Another second-century Christian text, a letter called To Autolychus, uses the word. Here, it’s placed more closely to sexual sins. But the first time this letter uses arsenokoites, it separates it from sexual sins by three words condemning thieves, plunderers, and defrauders. The second time the word appears, its placement is more ambiguous, situated between sexual sins and sins of exploitation. That positioning has led Dale Martin to suggest that the term arsenokoites may describe “economic exploitation by some sexual means.”16
We shouldn’t be surprised to find that both uses of the word in the New Testament place it between sexual and economic vices. In 1 Corinthians 6, the word appears following references to “sexually immoral” and “adulterers” and before “thieves” and the “greedy.” In 1 Timothy 1:10, it appears after “sexually immoral” and before “slave traders” or “menstealers.”17 These contexts support the idea that arsenokoites describes some kind of sexual and economic exploitation.
So what can we reasonably conclude from these findings? One of the most prominent forms of sexual exploitation in the ancient world was the practice of pederasty. If arsenokoites does refer to male same-sex behavior, it’s possible that it refers to pederasty.18 But given the scarcity of the word in ancient literature, the most we can say with confidence is that it may refer to some kind of economic exploitation involving sexual behavior. While that may have included same-sex behavior, it would likely have been exploitative forms of it.
MINOR SHIFT, MAJOR IMPLICATIONS
We’ve examined these words separately, along with the most likely meaning of each one. Now, let’s look at the meaning of the two words as used together. Perhaps Paul’s placement of malakos and arsenokoites next to each other indicates we should understand them as a pair, condemning both passive and active forms of same-sex behavior.19
That’s the case made by many non-affirming Christians, and it helps explain why some modern English Bible translations combine the two words, rendering them as a sweeping condemnation of all “men who have sex with men.” But malakos and arsenokoites were never used as a pair by other ancient writers, so that idea rests on speculation. Other word pairs were in common use to describe both partners in same-sex relations—words such as erastes and eromenos, or paiderastes and kinaidos.
But here’s the key point to remember: even if Paul had intended his words to be a condemnation of both male partners in same-sex relations, the context in which he would have been making that statement would still differ significantly from our context today.
As we have seen, same-sex behavior in the first century was not understood to be the expression of an exclusive sexual orientation. It was understood as excess on the part of those who could easily be content with heterosexual relationships, but who went beyond them in search of more exotic pleasures.20
That conceptual difference, I should emphasize, isn’t confined to the ancient world. We see it reflected in the history of how the word arsenokoitai was translated into English. Most English-language Bible translations over the past five hundred years have connected the term to male same-sex behavior. But until the past century, Bible translators didn’t describe same-sex behavior as the expression of a sexual orientation. To give you a sense of what I mean, here’s a sampling of how arsenokoitai was translated into English from the sixteenth through the nineteenth centuries:
• 1525: “abusars of them selves with the mankynde” (Tyndale New Testament)
• 1587: “buggerers” (Geneva Bible)
• 1729: “the brutal” (Mace New Testament)
• 1755: “sodomites” (Wesley’s New Testament)
• 1899: “liers with mankind” (Douay-Rheims American Edition)
“Sodomites” and “buggerers” were labels applied on the basis of acts, not desires. Once a person ceased engaging in “sodomy” or “buggery” (terms that could encompass all non-procreative sexual acts), he was no longer considered a sodomite or a buggerer.
But starting in the mid-twentieth century, the translation of arsenokoitai shifted in a subtle but significant way. It no longer referred to an act any man might commit, but rather, to a specific type of person whose sexual orientation made him uniquely subject to condemnation. Thus, English translations tended more toward “homosexuals” or “homosexual perverts.”
• 1946: “homosexuals” (RSV)
• 1958: “pervert” (Phillips)
• 1966: “homosexual perverts” (TEV)
• 1973: “homosexual offenders” (NIV)
• 1987: “practicing homosexuals” (NAB)
As the concept of sexual orientation came to be more widely understood, some Bible versions changed “homosexuals” to “practicing homosexuals” in order to distinguish between an apparently blameless sexual orientation and blameworthy sexual conduct. But this distinction, as we know, was alien to the biblical world. There was no word in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Latin that corresponds to the English word for “gay,” as the concept of an exclusive, permanent same-sex orientation is little more than a century old.
So what are we to make of this minor shift in translation in the mid-twentieth century? It’s had significant consequences. It fostered the mistaken belief that Paul was condemning a minority group with a different sexual orientation. Instead, he was likely condemning excessive and exploitative sexual conduct. (Most of the other vices listed in 1 Corinthians 6, it’s worth pointing out, can be understood as sins of excess or exploitation: general sexual immorality, adultery, thievery, greed, drunkenness, slander, and swindling.)
But merely changing anachronistic language such as “homosexuals” to “men who have sex with men,” as some modern translators have done, is little better. Such sweeping language still obscures the fundamental differences between how Paul understood same-sex relations and the modern understanding of sexual orientation. In so doing, it wrongly attributes to Paul a position on a hot-button issue he never faced: the question of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. This misattribution, however subtle the difference in wording, is a tragedy. It’s just a few words, but they have separated millions of people from the transformative power of the gospel.
In the first three chapters of this book, we looked at three significant problems with non-affirming beliefs about homosexuality. First, we saw that a categorical rejection of same-sex relationships has been deeply damaging to gay Christians. This isn’t the outcome we should expect given Jesus’s teaching that good trees will bear good fruit, so it invites us to reconsider the issue.
In chapter 2, we saw that the concept of same-sex orientation didn’t exist in the ancient world. Prior to recent generations, same-sex behavior was widely understood to be the product of sexual excess, not the expression of a sexual orientation. The issue we face today—gay Christians and their committed relationships—hasn’t been an issue the church has faced in past eras.
But while there is no church tradition on the issue of gay Christians, we saw in chapter 3 that the church has an established tradition affirming that lifelong celibacy should be voluntarily chosen, not mandated. Maintaining a condemnation of same-sex relationships would require us to revise that teaching, which is grounded in the core doctrines of creation, incarnation, and resurrection.
In light of those problems with the traditional interpretation, we embarked on an exploration of the six Scripture passages most often cited in the debate about gay Christians. In each case, we found that the traditional interpretation doesn’t envision the committed relationships of gay Christians.
For instance, the Sodom and Gomorrah story describes a threatened same-sex gang rape, a far cry from intimate companionship. Likewise, the prohibitions of male same-sex intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 were grounded in cultural concerns about patriarchal gender roles, not the anatomical complementarity of men and women. Today’s debate takes place in a context far removed from the setting of Leviticus and its prohibitions, a law code that has never applied to Christians.
We then investigated Romans 1:26–27, the central text in this debate. While Paul took a negative view of same-sex behavior in that passage, the language and logic of his discussion differ significantly from the issue of gay Christians. Paul viewed same-sex relations as stemming from excessive sexual desire and lust, not as the loving expression of a sexual orientation. Furthermore, his use of the terms “natural” and “unnatural” reflects a concern about customary gender roles in a patriarchal society, not the anatomical “sameness” of same-sex partners.
Finally, we looked at the disputed Greek terms that appear in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. While malakoi and arsenokoitai could encompass forms of same-sex behavior, the behavior they might describe bears little resemblance to the modern relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians.
The bottom line is this: The Bible doesn’t directly address the issue of same-sex orientation—or the expression of that orientation. While its six references to same-sex behavior are negative, the concept of same-sex behavior in the Bible is sexual excess, not sexual orientation. What’s more, the main reason that non-affirming Christians believe the Bible’s statements should apply to all same-sex relationships—men and women’s anatomical complementarity—is not mentioned in any of the texts.
I remember sitting across from my dad at our breakfast-room table as he began to absorb those facts for the first time. We discussed the history of the two words in this chapter along with the other passages, and he started to realize that his assumptions about the Bible and homosexuality had been mistaken. Even though Dad has a humble heart, it was still a blow to his pride to imagine that he could’ve been wrong on such an important issue for his whole life. But it was also a liberating realization. After spending several months walking with me through these Scripture passages, Dad came to see that his faith may not be compromised by embracing a same-sex relationship for me. He was starting to think that he could continue to affirm the full authority of Scripture, and at the same time, affirm me.
Granted, the Bible’s silence on committed same-sex relationships doesn’t necessarily mean those relationships are blessed. Even if you agree with my analysis so far, you may still wonder: Can loving, committed same-sex unions fulfill the Bible’s understanding of marriage?
Let’s look at that question in depth.