I first looked at these two words in a discussion of the place of ‘Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible‘ [1] Their use in the two passages above has always provoked controversy. ….

‘Men Who Practice Homosexuality’ …

This phrase is used in two translations of the Bible, the ESV and the 2011 revision of the NIV. This ‘catch-all’ phrase in these two translations is not warranted by the individual Greek words used in these two contexts. The translation of these two words has always been a matter of uncertainty and debate and an accurate translation should have made it clear that it is not possible to define their meaning exactly.

The way the two Greek words are treated is a case of over simplification by the translators. In an endeavour to simplify a reading of the text, they have allowed their assumptions to narrow down meaning and perhaps even obfuscate what is true. The truth is that scholars either do not know, or cannot agree on the meaning of two Greek words, The two words are arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοίτης) and malakoi (μαλακοὶ). Their exact meanings are seemingly lost in the past and scholars have been debating the best translation of the words for some length of time.

The assumption that the translators of the ESV and the NIV make is that together they are a kind of ‘catch-all’ for all homosexual acts. This is just one opinion, it is not a justifiable assumption for translators to make.

Look at how historic translations of the Bible have translated ‘arsenokoitais‘: “bugger (1557), liers with mankind (1582), sodomites (1735), abusers of themselves with mankind (1885), those who abuse themselves with men (1890). The closest meaning of ‘arsenokoitai’ over five hundred years of translation was men who took the active role in non­procreative sex. ‘Arsenokoitai’ did not define what we would call the sexual orientation of a person; it indicated the role played in the sexual act.” [7]

A shift began to happen in the late 1940s: “‘Arsenokoitai’ was translated in the 1946 Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible as “homosexual.” This meant that the translation changed the meaning of the original word from a condemnation of any kind of man who played the dominant role in sex with another male to a condemnation of one specific kind of man—a gay person.” [7]

“After the RSV translated ‘arsenokoitai’ to ‘homosexual’, …   ‘Arsenokoitai’ was soon translated variously: pervert (1962); sexual pervert (1966); sodomite (1966); and those who practice homosexuality (1978).” [7]

In the culture in which ‘arsenokoitai’ originated, the meaning was closest either to pederasty or to a man engaged in exploitative sex with a male with some sort of trade or money involved. “Such relationships were not and are not equal-status relationships; one partner has power, while the other is being used and degraded.” [7]

Note too that, while defining the meaning of ‘arsenokoitai‘ is fraught with difficulty, one thing is not in doubt. “It is clear from all its contexts that it does not refer to women in any way. Yet, when ‘arsenokoitai’ was mistranslated to ‘homosexual’, it immediately, by definition, came to include women as well as men.” [7] This shift in translation seems to have occurred, not as a result of a careful hermaneutic or as a result of  literary scholarship through a change in the translators “sexual ideaology.” [7]

Now look at how leading English translations treat these two words, ‘Arsenokoitai‘ and ‘Malakoi‘,  in 1 Corinthians 6:9: [2]

“men who practice homosexuality” (ESV; a marginal note reads, “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts”)

“men who have sex with men” (NIV [2011]); a marginal note reads, “The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts”)

“male prostitutes … homosexual offenders” (NIV [1984])

“effeminate … homosexuals” (NASB 1995); a marginal note to the first word reads, “i.e. effeminate by perversion”

“effeminate … sodomites” (NKJV)

“effeminate … abusers of themselves with mankind” (AV).

We have already noted that a significant change occurred in the 1940s. But, even so, there is actually very little agreement over the exact meaning of each word. “These translations appear to agree that the individuals in view are men who are engaged in some kind of sexual activity of which Paul disapproves. But the translations’ differences outshine their agreement. Should the terms be understood together or separately? Does the term ‘malakos’ denote male homosexual activity (generally), the passive participant in a homosexual act, a man who engages in paid sexual activity with other men, or an effeminate man? Does the term ‘arsenokoites’ denote male homosexual activity (generally) or the active participant in a homosexual act (specifically)?” [2]

Reviewing the evidence in commentaries and academic literature only widens the uncertainty over the meaning of these words. A survey of the commentaries and academic literature would only yield further possibilities.

I have taken the short notes above from a conservative evangelical website [2] to illustrate that this breadth of meaning has to be embraced before the argument on that website concludes that, when taken together, the two words are a kind of ‘catch-all’ phrase which embraces all homosexuality, both inclination and action. The result is that many who hold the traditional position on ‘homosexuality’ argue that the particular texts which use these words, 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, say that “homosexuals” will not inherit the kingdom of God. Hence, the church cannot affirm same-sex relationships without abandoning the gospel.

We have, however, to be very careful in dealing with these two words and we must look as closely as we can at their use in antiquity, particularly within the cultures of Paul’s day, and we must strive not to read back into them the cultural categories of our own times. This is a trap which we can all fall into so easily.

The term malakoi literally meant “soft,” in the Greco-Roman culture of Paul’s day. It was  often used to refer to, a lack of self-control, weakness, cowardice, and laziness. These were seen as negative characteristics and were often attributed to women in the societies of Paul’s day.

“The term was also long translated as ‘effeminate.’ Although most uses of the term in ancient literature were not related to sexual behaviour, men who took the passive role in same-sex relations were sometimes called ‘malakoi’, which is why many non-affirming Christians argue that it represents a condemnation of same-sex relationships. But even in sexual contexts, ‘malakos’ was most frequently used to describe men who were seen as lacking self-control in their love for women. It’s only in the past century that many Bible translators have connected the word specifically to same-sex relationships. More common English translations in past centuries were terms such as ‘weaklings’, ‘wantons’, and ‘debauchers‘.” [3]

“‘Malakoi’ is easier to translate because it appears in more ancient texts than ‘arsenokoitai’, yet it suffers other complications when translated to modern English. Older translations for ‘malakoi’ are: weaklings (1525), effeminate (1582, 1901), those who make women of themselves (1890), the sensual (1951). … Then, just as happened with ‘arsenokoitais’, there was a radical shift over just a few decades. Following cultural stereotyping of gay people, ‘malakoi’ was translated as follows: those who participate in homosexuality (1958), sexual perverts (1972), male prostitute (1989).” [7][8]

Again, these changes reflect changed modern perspectives rather than a better understanding of the meaning of words within their original context.

Even so, doesn’t Paul’s practice of using ‘malakoi‘ and ‘arsenokoti‘ in tandem make it likely that he uses it in a way that refers to what we call ‘homosexual behaviour’?

The term ‘arsenokoites‘ “comes from two Greek words: ‘arsen’, meaning ‘male’, and ‘koites’, meaning ‘bed’. Those words appear together in the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13, leading some to speculate that Paul coined the term ‘arsenokoites’  in order to condemn same-sex behaviour.” [3] Whether this is a speculation rather than a warranted assumption is a matter of dispute, because traditionalists argue that it is the most likely meaning of the word as Paul used it.

Speaking from a liberal perspective, Carolyn Bratnober argues in ‘Legacies of Homosexuality in New Testament Studies: Arsenokoitai and malakoi, fornicators and sodomites, in the history of sexuality and scripture‘, [4] that “the tragedy of conservative homophobia in the 1980s was this: that antihomosexual usage of biblical texts was enflamed by HIV/AIDS discourse — while, at the same time, the effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic on communities in poverty and communities of colour were unreported for so long that the epidemic devastated these communities to a greater extent than it did gay communities. Progressive biblical scholars, as well as Christian Religious Right leaders, fed this focus on homosexuality in their studies of New Testament texts. They focused so much on homosexuality that they missed the big picture: anti-imperial, anti-exploitation theology. President Reagan’s condemnations of “welfare queens” and “moral failures,” bolstered by his supporters on the Religious Right, co-opted a version of Pauline ethics that supported empire rather than opposed it. Failure to acknowledge this deeply problematic history of Biblical literature is harmful for the contemporary LGBTQ community and for combatting the legacies of racism in the United States. There is a deep and urgent need for Biblical scholars and historians to heed the words of Emilie Townes and others calling for efforts toward a counterhegemonic history that overturns pervasive racist myths and invisibilized narratives that continue to marginalize oppressed groups based on perceived collective characteristics. Biblical scholars and those who utilize scriptural resources in their work must address the historic use of Pauline epistles in homophobic discourse. They must acknowledge that terms such as ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ referred to those who were vulnerable to sexual and economic exploitation through the social institutions of slavery and forced sex in the Roman Empire.”  [4: p51-52]

Bratnober is prepared to state categorically that the translation of ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi‘ to mean “homosexuals” or “sodomites” in the NRSV is false. “The idea of the ‘sin of Sodom’ can be traced to Biblical texts [although I question the link to ‘homosexual actions’], but not ‘sodomy’ or ‘sodomites’- these terms were developed in the medieval period.” [4: p46] And she mentions the work of Scroggs, who argued that  ‘malakoi‘ and ‘arsenokoitai‘ referred to counterparts in sexual encounters where prostitution and economic exploitation were involved—that ‘malakoi‘ would have had the meaning of a specific role, something similar to an “effeminate call-boy” or passive recipient in penetrative sex, and that ‘arsenokoitai’ would have meant the active partner “who keeps the ‘malakos‘ as a mistress or hires him on occasion.”[4: p18][5: p108]

Scroggs mentions that these themes/words appear side by side in 1 Timothy 1 with a third term ‘andropdistai’ – “which was used in several other ancient sources to describe one who is a kidnapper or, literally, a slave-dealer.” [5: p118-120] Scroggs interprets the author of 1 Timothy’s inclusion of ‘andropodistai’ in his list of vices as a reference to specific forms of the sex economy “which consisted of the enslaving of boys as youths for sexual purposes.” [5: p121] so, if it was this institution of sexual slavery that was being condemned in 1 Timothy and even in 1 Corinthians, then it is slavery and rape which must be the subject of all scholarship on ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ in the New Testament—not ‘homosexuality’ as such. [4: p18]

Bratnober spends some time delving into the appropriate meaning of these two words, but ultimately concludes that much energy has been wasted on this work which would have been better spent on wider issues such as “those who were vulnerable to sexual and economic exploitation through the social institutions of slavery and forced sex in the Roman Empire.” [4: p52]

Just as we looked at early Jewish interpretations of the ‘sin of Sodom’, [1] we do well, in the context of this article to note that some modern Jewish scholars talk of the ‘sin of Sodom’ as prohibited, because “the Canaanites used homosexual acts as part of their pagan rituals. Therefore the Israelites were prohibited from doing this, not because it was an act between two men but because it was symbolic of pagan ritual. In today’s world this prohibition now has no meaning (and homosexual sex is permitted).” [Rabbi Michele Brand Medwin, as quoted by Patrick Beaulier][6]

If it seems that these arguments are about semantics rather than substance, it is worth remembering that dismissing arguments on this basis, or on the basis of seeking to adhere to what appears to be the ‘plain meaning’ of the text, is to fail to properly respect the texts we read. If we claim to respect scripture as the only authority, or even the most important authority, then we only do so if we are prepared to properly investigate what was actually meant by the words of scripture.

So, what is the substance of my argument about the words ‘arsenokoitai’ (ἀρσενοκοίτης) and ‘malakoi‘ (μαλακοὶ). It is simply this, that there remains significant disagreement about the meaning of these words among scholars, some of whom take a conservative position, others who are more liberal. That level of disagreement is sufficient to mean that we are clearly, at least at present, unable to be certain of the meaning and tend to take the meaning(s) that most suit our own arguments. The translators of the revised version of the NIV [2011] and of the ESV abandon the middle ground and assert both in the text and in the margin that these two terms are effectively used together in a ‘catch-all’ way to relate to all forms of homosexuality. This is very far from certain. The NIV and ESV translators should have accepted the ongoing struggle with the translation of these two difficult words (perhaps using the words which appeared in the original 1984 version of the NIV (male prostitutes … homosexual offenders – although, as we have seen, there is a problem with the use of the word ‘homosexual’) and should have placed commentary in the margins which commented on their particular stance in the debate.

References

1. https://wordpress.com/post/rogerfarnworth.com/40703
2. https://gospelreformation.net/pauls-understanding-of-sexuality/?print=print, accessed on 18th February 2023.
3. https://reformationproject.org/case/1-corinthians-and-1-timothy, accessed on 18th February 2023.
4. Carolyn V. Bratnober; Legacies of Homosexuality in New Testament Studies: Arsenokoitai and malakoi, fornicators and sodomites, in the history of sexuality and scripture; Union Theological Seminary, New York, 2017.
5. Robin Scroggs; The New Testament on Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate; Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1983.
6. https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/196548?lang=bi, accessed on 17th February 2023.
7. https://canyonwalkerconnections.com/library/bible-verses/1st-corinthians-1st-timothy, accessed on September 2024.
8. These translations of ‘malakoi’ are examples of the trend in the change of the words used to translate the term. For a more detailed review, please have a look at https://www.gaychristian101.com/Malakoi.html, (accessed on 11th September 2024) which gives a fuller list of the words used in different translations.