The claim that a mistranslation introduced the Bible’s condemnation of homosexual conduct in 1946 confuses the history of an English word with the meaning of much older biblical texts. The Revised Standard Version New Testament published that year used “homosexuals” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, but the underlying Greek expressions had existed long before that translation appeared. Earlier English translations also understood the passage to address sexual conduct between males, although they expressed that understanding differently. Nevertheless, the precision of the English word deserves examination because modern readers may understand it as identifying anyone who experiences same-sex attraction, regardless of conduct. An English rendering can require clarification without the biblical teaching behind it being a modern invention. The decisive question is what Paul communicated through his words, their immediate context, and their relationship to the rest of Scripture. A historical-grammatical examination therefore must distinguish translation history, lexical meaning, moral instruction, and claims about cultural influence.

What Actually Changed in 1946?

The relevant change occurred in an English translation, not in the Greek text of 1 Corinthians. Paul’s wording includes two expressions, μαλακοί (malakoi) and ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai), which the original RSV rendering represented together with “homosexuals.” The distinction matters because a reader encountering only that English word might not realize that two Greek terms stand behind it. Neither expression was inserted into Paul’s letter by the RSV committee. Both were already present in the Greek text underlying earlier translations. Consequently, describing the event as the addition of homosexuality to the Bible misidentifies what happened. The committee selected an English expression for existing Greek language, and that selection must be evaluated as a translation decision.

The English Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901 provide concrete evidence that the sexual interpretation preceded the RSV. Their rendering of arsenokoitai included the expression “abusers of themselves with men,” language that clearly directed readers toward male same-sex conduct. That older wording is awkward to contemporary readers, but its reference to men cannot reasonably be treated as an invention of the later RSV. These translations also rendered malakoi separately, preserving a distinction obscured when both terms were represented by one English designation. Their existence does not automatically prove that every earlier translation choice was ideal. It does establish that the interpretation under discussion was already present in English Bibles before 1946. The appearance of a newer English label therefore cannot establish the beginning of the underlying moral teaching.

A word’s entrance into the vocabulary of a translation must also be distinguished from the existence of the conduct it describes. Ancient writers could discuss sexual relations between persons of the same sex without possessing the vocabulary used in modern discussions of sexual orientation. Similarly, a modern English term can describe an ancient practice without implying that ancient people organized every aspect of personal identity around that term. Translation requires an assessment of correspondence between meanings, not merely a comparison of when particular words first appeared. The absence of a modern label from an older English Bible therefore proves little by itself. What matters is whether the earlier wording communicated substantially the same conduct and whether the original language supports that meaning. The pre-RSV wording of 1 Corinthians 6:9 makes that distinction especially important.

Why Translation Precision Still Matters

Although the biblical prohibition was not invented in 1946, “homosexuals” can be insufficiently precise when readers understand it principally as an identity classification. A person who experiences same-sex attraction while abstaining from sexual activity is not doing the same thing as someone who engages in the conduct Paul addresses. The Greek terms in their context concern morally accountable persons characterized by particular behavior, rather than a modern psychological classification applied without regard to conduct. This does not mean that Scripture is indifferent to deliberately cultivated sexual desire, since Matthew 5:27–28 addresses the moral significance of lust. It means that temptation, the deliberate nurturing of desire, and the commission of a sexual act must not be treated as interchangeable descriptions. A translation should help readers understand what the text identifies rather than encourage them to collapse these distinctions. Correcting an overly broad impression is therefore compatible with retaining the passage’s prohibition of male same-sex intercourse.

The Updated American Standard Version preserves the two expressions in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “men of passive homosexual acts” and “men of active homosexual acts.” This wording directs attention to participation in sexual conduct and reflects the understanding that the paired terms concern the receptive and active participants. It also avoids making the English noun “homosexuals” carry the entire explanatory burden. The reference to acts is particularly important when the passage is discussed with someone who experiences an unwanted attraction but seeks to obey Scripture. At the same time, an English translation remains accountable to the Greek, and its explanatory wording must be assessed through context and usage. The strongest defense of the biblical teaching therefore does not consist of insisting that one English word is beyond criticism. It consists of demonstrating that the original expressions, read in their biblical setting, concern conduct that Paul excludes from faithful Christian living.

The Meaning of Malakoi in Its Context

The adjective malakos, appearing in the plural as malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9, has the basic sense of softness. In Luke 7:25, related wording describes soft clothing associated with luxurious living. That example establishes that the word cannot carry a sexual meaning in every occurrence. When applied to persons, however, it could convey moral or sexual associations that must be determined from the setting in which it appears. In 1 Corinthians 6:9, its placement among sexual offenses and immediately beside arsenokoitai supports its reference to males taking the passive role in male same-sex intercourse. This contextual reading is more persuasive than treating the word as a condemnation of gentle manners, a quiet personality, or some failure to conform to a preferred masculine appearance. Paul does not provide a vocabulary for condemning men because of their voices, interests, or ordinary temperament. The question concerns sexual conduct within a passage addressing unrighteous behavior.

The contextual evidence for that interpretation should be stated carefully rather than exaggerated into a claim that the word has only one possible meaning throughout Greek literature. A word with several established uses does not become meaningless, but neither should its entire range of meanings be imported into a single occurrence. The reference to clothing in Luke 7:25 does not make clothing the subject of 1 Corinthians 6:9. Conversely, the sexual setting of 1 Corinthians 6:9 does not make every occurrence of malakos a reference to sexual conduct. The historical-grammatical method determines the intended meaning by examining the particular statement in which a word functions. Here, the surrounding sexual terms and the pairing with arsenokoitai provide the relevant controls. That approach grounds interpretation in Paul’s sentence rather than in assumptions about modern personality categories.

Arsenokoitai and the Language of Leviticus

The expression arsenokoitai is especially significant because of its relationship to the Greek wording of Leviticus. Its components correspond to language for a male and a bed, with bedding functioning in a sexual sense. Those elements appear together in the Greek translation of the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. This correspondence provides strong grounds for understanding Paul’s term against the background of the scriptural prohibition of a male lying sexually with another male. The relationship is more substantial than an imaginative attempt to extract meaning from unrelated syllables. Paul’s Jewish scriptural background and the subject of the surrounding terms reinforce the connection. Nothing in those components introduces a restriction to children, commercial prostitution, or a particular religious ceremony.

Nevertheless, a compound word should not be interpreted by its parts alone. The meaning of an English compound such as “butterfly” illustrates why mechanical word division cannot serve as a complete lexical method. In the case of arsenokoitai, however, the argument includes a corresponding biblical expression, a suitable sexual context, and another Pauline occurrence in 1 Timothy 1:10. Those considerations together support the meaning of males engaging in sexual relations with males. The term’s relative rarity calls for careful reasoning, but rarity does not permit an interpreter to assign it any meaning that a modern argument requires. An interpretation limited exclusively to coercion would need positive evidence that coercion defines the word’s scope. The biblical language from which the term is best understood supplies a reference to male same-sex intercourse without that limitation.

What the Hebrew Prohibition Actually Says

Leviticus 18:22 states in the UASV: “You shall not lie with a male as you lie down with a woman; it is a detestable thing.” The Hebrew identifies a male as the sexual partner and describes the prohibited act by comparison with intercourse with a woman. It does not substitute a word meaning boy for the broader reference to a male. It does not specify payment, enslavement, a temple, or violence as the condition that makes the act prohibited. Those circumstances can involve additional wrongs, but they are not written into this command as its exclusive subject. Leviticus 20:13 repeats the male-with-male description and addresses responsibility within Israel’s legal order. The central language therefore concerns the sexual act itself rather than only one abusive form of it.

The surrounding references to pagan practices do not turn every prohibition in Leviticus 18 into a rule applicable only during pagan worship. Leviticus 18:20 prohibits intercourse with another man’s wife, while Leviticus 18:21 prohibits giving offspring to Molech. The presence of the latter command does not make adultery permissible whenever no sacrifice to Molech occurs. In the same way, the proximity of Leviticus 18:22 to an idolatrous practice does not restrict its sexual prohibition to temple activity. Context must clarify a command without supplying exceptions that the command does not contain. The chapter addresses several kinds of forbidden conduct within Jehovah’s requirements for His people. Its setting cannot legitimately be used to erase the ordinary force of its individual prohibitions.

The Independent Evidence of 1 Timothy 1:10

The appearance of the same word in 1 Timothy 1:10 strengthens the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6:9. The UASV renders the relevant expression “men who lie with men,” wording that identifies conduct without relying on a modern identity label. Paul places it among violations contrary to sound teaching in a discussion of the lawful use of the law. The surrounding list includes sexual immorality, kidnapping, lying, and perjury. The proximity of kidnapping does not establish that every sexual offense in the list concerns kidnapped persons. A list can name related violations without making one item a restrictive definition of another. Furthermore, the corresponding kidnapping term does not appear beside arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9. An interpretation that confines the word to trafficking therefore introduces a restriction that neither passage states.

The wider argument of 1 Timothy 1 also makes the passage more than a discussion of local etiquette. Paul connects sound teaching with the gospel entrusted to him in 1 Timothy 1:10–11. The moral instruction belongs to the apostolic message rather than to the preferences of a later English translation committee. Immediately afterward, Paul describes the mercy he himself received despite his former blasphemy, persecution, and insolence in 1 Timothy 1:12–16. Moral accountability and the availability of mercy therefore stand together within the chapter. Neither should be removed in order to simplify the passage into a weapon against others or an assurance that conduct is irrelevant. The same apostle who identifies wrongdoing also presents Christ’s patience toward those who repent and believe.

Romans 1 Does Not Depend on the Disputed English Word

Romans 1:26–27 presents a decisive difficulty for the claim that the biblical teaching originated with “homosexuals” in the RSV. Paul describes the conduct in a complete statement without using either of the disputed terms from 1 Corinthians 6:9. Romans 1:27 speaks of men abandoning natural relations with women and becoming inflamed in desire toward one another. The UASV includes the explicit description “males with males committing the shameless deed.” Whatever criticism might be made of the RSV’s vocabulary in 1 Corinthians 6:9, that criticism cannot remove the descriptive language in Romans 1:27. Paul identifies the sex of the participants and places their conduct within his argument about the rejection of the Creator’s order. The interpretation therefore does not stand or fall with the suitability of a single twentieth-century English noun.

The reference to desire “toward one another” is also important when evaluating the claim that Paul addresses only a coercive encounter. Mutual desire does not prove that every relationship in the ancient world was free from exploitation, but it prevents coercion from being treated as the only circumstance described by the sentence. Paul does not say that the conduct becomes wrong only when one participant receives payment or when one participant is underage. Romans 1:26 also addresses women, and the parallel description of men in Romans 1:27 clarifies the sexual contrast within the passage. The argument concerns departure from the male-female sexual relationship, not merely the violation of one participant’s wishes. Restricting Paul’s language to abuse therefore requires qualifications that the text does not supply. The fact that abuse is sinful does not establish that abuse is the sole moral issue in every biblical prohibition involving sex.

Romans 1 places these statements within a larger discussion of humanity’s exchange of the truth about God for falsehood. That setting does not mean that the conduct is prohibited only when performed as part of an idol’s ritual. Romans 1:29–31 includes greed, deceit, malice, arrogance, and other wrongs within the same account of human rebellion. No sound reading would make deceit acceptable whenever the deceiver is not participating in a pagan ceremony. Likewise, the reference to idolatry explains the broader theological setting without confining every subsequent wrong to a temple. Paul’s language must be read as an argument about the consequences of rejecting God’s authority. At the same time, Romans 2:1 immediately confronts the person who judges others while practicing wrongdoing, preventing the passage from becoming a basis for self-righteousness.

Does a Committed Relationship Change the Meaning?

Another argument holds that Paul could have intended only exploitative practices because his words do not expressly discuss modern committed same-sex partnerships. This reasoning confuses the absence of a modern social category with the absence of a moral principle applicable to the conduct involved. A prohibition framed in terms of the sex of the participants does not become inapplicable merely because the participants describe their relationship with newer terminology. Scripture also does not make affection the sole criterion by which sexual relations become permissible. Two persons can feel deep attachment while one remains married to someone else, yet their attachment does not cancel the prohibition of adultery in Hebrews 13:4. Consent and sincerity address real features of a relationship, but they do not answer every biblical question about it. The relevant issue remains whether the sexual union conforms to the form of marriage Scripture establishes. No clause in the passages under consideration supplies an exception for male same-sex intercourse on the basis of duration, affection, or exclusivity.

Jesus’ Teaching and the Created Form of Marriage

Jesus’ teaching about marriage must also be considered when evaluating the claim that the Christian sexual ethic rests on an isolated translation decision. In Matthew 19:4–6, He refers to the creation of male and female and then cites the union of a man with his wife. His immediate subject is divorce, and responsible interpretation should preserve that setting. Nevertheless, the reason He gives for the seriousness of marriage identifies the created relationship upon which His answer depends. Jesus does not construct His teaching from the vocabulary of any modern English Bible. He directs attention to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, where sexual distinction and the marital union belong to the account of humanity’s creation. His teaching therefore supplies a positive account of marriage within which the apostolic sexual prohibitions are coherent. An argument from His failure to use a modern identity term cannot overturn the relationship He explicitly affirms.

This appeal to creation should not be reduced to the claim that every married couple must be able to produce children. Genesis 2:24 describes the marital union itself, and Scripture does not declare that a husband and wife cease to be married when they are infertile or elderly. The relevance of male and female therefore cannot be dismissed by pointing to marriages in which conception does not occur. Nor does Scripture require every person to marry, as Paul’s discussion of unmarried life in 1 Corinthians 7 demonstrates. The biblical alternatives include honorable marriage and sexual abstinence. These instructions apply to persons with different circumstances and desires rather than granting sexual expression whenever abstinence is difficult. The question of whether a particular desire is deeply experienced remains distinct from the question of whether acting upon it is authorized.

The Mosaic Covenant and Christian Moral Responsibility

Recognizing the relevance of Leviticus does not mean that Christians are under Israel’s entire covenantal legal administration. Romans 7:6 speaks of release from the law, while the apostolic instructions establish the obligations of believers under Christ. The proper argument therefore is not that every penalty and regulation in Leviticus transfers unchanged to the Christian congregation. Rather, the prohibition of male same-sex conduct appears again in apostolic teaching addressed to Christian readers. Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10 supply that evidence independently of any attempt to impose Israel’s civil penalties. Paul’s instructions concerning congregational wrongdoing in 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 concern association and discipline, not the administration of Israel’s capital sanctions. The continuity of a moral prohibition must consequently be distinguished from the continuation of the earlier legal system. That distinction allows the passages to be interpreted together without assigning the church an authority the apostles did not give it.

What a Translation Revision Can Establish

The RSV’s later replacement of “homosexuals” with “sexual perverts” in its 1971 revision must be evaluated according to what a revision actually demonstrates. It shows that the translators changed their English representation of the passage. It does not, by itself, show that Paul approved of consensual male same-sex intercourse. Indeed, the replacement expression is broad enough that it requires explanation to identify the particular conduct represented by the two Greek terms. A more general English designation does not automatically produce a more exact translation. The question must still be answered by the Greek wording, its scriptural background, and its immediate context. Neither the earlier rendering nor the later revision possesses the authority to redefine the apostolic text.

Appeals to correspondence about the translation require the same distinction between historical evidence and exegetical evidence. A translator’s acknowledgment that an English term could mislead readers would be relevant to evaluating that term. It would not automatically establish that the Greek expressions refer only to child abuse, prostitution, or exploitation. Those narrower proposals each require linguistic and contextual support of their own. The precise scope of any acknowledgment must therefore be established from what was actually acknowledged, rather than expanded into a rejection of every traditional interpretation of the passage. A committee can reconsider wording without discovering that an entire moral teaching was invented. Historical documentation about the translation process cannot substitute for interpretation of the text being translated.

Can One Translation Choice Explain a Cultural Shift?

The claim that one translation choice shifted a culture is a separate historical proposition from the claim that the translation was inaccurate. Establishing such causation would require evidence showing how particular readers, churches, institutions, and movements received the wording and acted because of it. Merely identifying the year in which a translation adopted an expression cannot establish that the expression created the convictions held by its readers. The earlier English translations already discussed provide a concrete obstacle to that explanation because they conveyed a prohibition of male same-sex conduct before the RSV appeared. The wording of an influential translation can certainly affect how people discuss a subject and whom they think a passage addresses. That possibility makes precision important, especially when an English identity label can obscure the distinction between attraction and action. However, possible influence is not proof that the translation originated the teaching or caused every subsequent response to it. Both the historical claim and the linguistic claim must be supported separately.

The moral use of a translation must likewise be distinguished from the meaning of the biblical passage. An individual can use an accurate statement cruelly, just as an imprecise translation can encourage a mistaken application. Neither possibility permits an interpreter to resolve the meaning of Greek words solely by describing the behavior of people who quoted them. Scripture itself supplies standards for evaluating that behavior. Titus 3:2 requires believers to avoid slander, show consideration, and display gentleness toward all people. James 3:9–10 condemns the inconsistency of blessing God while cursing human beings made in His likeness. A defense of biblical sexual morality therefore cannot legitimately excuse speech or conduct that violates other biblical commands.

Reading the Warning Without Distorting Its Scope

The complete list in 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 prevents a selective approach to Christian morality. Alongside the sexual offenses, Paul names thieves, greedy persons, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. A congregation that denounces one category while tolerating dishonest business practices or habitual verbal abuse is not faithfully applying the passage. The warning concerns the incompatibility of persistent unrighteous conduct with inheriting God’s kingdom. It does not authorize believers to regard one group of persons as beyond the reach of repentance or as possessing less human worth. The same chapter requires attention to the Corinthians’ own wrongdoing, including their defrauding of fellow believers in 1 Corinthians 6:7–8. Paul’s argument confronts the congregation rather than inviting it to find a convenient class of outsiders to despise.

Careful application also requires distinguishing an unwanted temptation from the decision to welcome and pursue it. James 1:14–15 describes a progression involving desire, enticement, and sin, while Hebrews 4:15 establishes that experiencing temptation is not itself identical with committing sin. This distinction does not make deliberately cultivated lust morally harmless. It does prevent an interpreter from treating every involuntary experience of attraction as though a sexual act had already occurred. A person who resists a desire in order to obey Scripture is making a morally significant choice that should not be erased by an imprecise label. Christian instruction should address actual conduct, deliberate thought, and the need for self-control with the distinctions Scripture provides. It should also avoid making claims about the causes or permanence of a person’s attractions that the biblical passage does not make. Exegesis is not improved by adding psychological assertions to an apostolic warning.

Repentance and the Meaning of “Such Were Some of You”

Paul follows his warning with the statement in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “And such were some of you.” He then speaks of their having been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God. The movement from the preceding list to this declaration establishes that former participation in those wrongs did not make forgiveness inaccessible. It also shows that the gospel involved a real break with the conduct Paul had identified. The verse does not say that believers were accepted because the prohibited practices had been reclassified as morally permissible. Neither does it provide a promise that every remembered desire or every future temptation would disappear immediately. Its emphasis is the changed standing and life of persons who had responded to Christ.

That distinction gives practical substance to Christian counsel. A believer seeking to obey Scripture needs instruction, honest fellowship, and help maintaining the self-control required of all Christians. First Thessalonians 4:3–5 connects holiness with abstaining from sexual immorality and governing sexual conduct honorably. Hebrews 4:16 directs believers to seek mercy and timely help rather than conceal their need behind a public appearance of strength. Those offering counsel should not promise an outcome concerning sexual attraction that Scripture does not promise, nor should they make marriage a prescribed remedy for unwanted desire. Their responsibility is to teach faithful conduct, uphold the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice for forgiveness, and encourage continued obedience through the instruction of the Spirit-inspired Scriptures. Galatians 6:1–2 requires that help to be offered gently, with personal watchfulness and a willingness to bear another’s burdens.

You May Also Enjoy

Refuting the King James Version-Onlyists: John William Burgon and Edward F. Hills

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS