Kingdom Heritage
I Corinthians 6:9-10 (also: I Timothy 1:9-11)
New Testament Passages
Traditional viewpoint: Those who practice homosexuality are not (cannot be) part of the Kingdom of God. All homosexual are going to hell; no homosexual will be in heaven. This passage is also used to put forth the idea that repentance and salvation will/can change the homosexual nature (the foundation of ex-gay/reparative groups).
But before we begin waving royal scepters and shouting “off with their heads” at those we deemed unworthy of the Kingdom, let’s understand that there are some king-sized problems with this interpretation.
- The original text (Greek) contains two words which the NASB translates as “effeminate” and “homosexual.” Although most Bible translations show the words as referring to homosexuals or at least homosexual behavior, we can be fairly certain that’s not what Paul intended to convey.
¤ Consider the word translated (NASB) as “homosexual.” The Greek word for sexual activity between males is “paiderasste” and he did not use that word here. Instead, Paul uses a unique and obscure word, “arsenokoitai” which is found nowhere else in any other writings of that time. (Did Paul coin this word?)
It’s a compound word made up of two Greek words meaning “man” and “bed.” The exact meaning of the word has been lost, however in one ancient manuscript, the Hebrew “quadesh” (which the KJV mistranslated as “sodomites” but we know actually refers to temple prostitutes, male and female.) is translated into Greek as “arsenokoitai.” That would suggest an understanding of the word as meaning those who engaged in sex during cultic worship.
¤ The other word Paul used is malakoi, which literally means “soft” (cf: Matthew 11:8 when Jesus used the word to talk about John the Baptist) It is translated in this passage as “effeminate” and obviously interpreted to mean some kind of homosexual activity, affectation or behavior, but the actual Greek word can refer to a wide range of behaviors/individuals, including those with loose morals, cowards, laziness, etc.
- The myriad of translations in modern versions for these two words/concepts should at least cause “red flags” in the minds of discerning Christians. Consider just a few:
ü effeminate // abusers of themselves with mankind (KJV)
Are we only talking about the “sissy” gays? You know, the flamers. Will butch (i.e., “straight acting”) gays make it into heaven? What about “lipstick lesbians?”
ü male prostitutes // homosexual offenders (NIV)
Does this mean that only homosexual who are offensive are included? Would that include all the fun, fabulous folks on TV who decorate homes, make witty, catty comments and give much-needed makeovers?
ü men who practice homosexuality (English Standard Version)
The ESV just combined both words into one idea. It saves space, but still doesn’t get the actual meaning.
ü pervert // [one who] behaves like a homosexual (CEV)
If someone is not a homosexual, but acts like one, will they make it into heaven? What about Tom Hanks? He won an Oscar acting...like a homosexual.
ü male prostitutes // men who have sexual relations with other men (New Century Version)
So it’s about those who sell their bodies?
ü male prostitutes // sodomites (NRSV)
Why in the world would the NRSV revert back to a word that the KJV made up?
ü men who act like women // people who do sex sins with their own sex (New Life Version)
So the NLV isn’t content with calling out “sissies,” they embellish to make it about drag queens?
ü effeminate // homosexuals (NASB)
ü male prostitutes // [those who] practice homosexuality (Living Translation)
In other words, since the translators are uncertain of the precise meaning, how can we assign such a definitive interpretation?
- As in the Romans passage, little attention is given to the other vices mentioned in Paul’s list. (e.g., fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers in the NSAB)
- For those groups, it appears their actions (what they do) can always be seen as separate from their identity (who they are). Moreover, the ultimate outcome is rarely as severe. Therefore, once again we see the “sin” of homosexuality being elevated to a status as “worse” than all the others.
- It doesn’t take the sexual orientation of the person into account and ignores the predominate proof of modern medicine and science, and instead focuses on behavior/activities. (i.e., doing homosexual acts versus being homosexual) It would be comparable to us taking the Biblical position on astronomy (the earth is the center of the universe; the sun revolves around the earth) over the factual findings of reputable scientists. So, we interpret the Bible in light of the scientific evidence.
Possible Alternative Explanations:
- The simplest and obvious idea–which captures the culture of Paul’s day–would be the prevailing practice of pederasty, which involved young males being “partnered” with older, more experienced men. The young men were the submissives (i.e., the “soft” ones) and the older men dominated. (i.e., the “men-bedders”) In the culture, the young, prepubescent boys—who’s appearance was that of a girl—were educated through a close relationship with an older man. This relationship, which was definitely sexual, was viewed as a means of raising up the next generation of leaders. Once the boys entered puberty (facial hair, definition of physical features, etc.) the relationship was to end.
- We could also infer that Paul was referencing the more “carnal” aspect of these practices, where young male prostitutes would be patronized by other clients. There was a definite and distinct classification of sexual expectations and behaviors. (active and passive; top and bottom)
- It could also speak to men who abused young boys in sexual relationship, or prostituted them to other men.
- It seems apparent that adult sexual relationship between two consenting adults was not being addressed.
