One of the most contested issues in modern Christianity is the interpretation of biblical texts concerning same-sex relationships. Much of this debate stems from a crucial yet often overlooked historical fact: the word “homosexual” did not appear in any English translation of the Bible until 1946, when it was introduced in the Revised Standard Version (RSV). This relatively recent addition reflects not the intent of the original scriptural texts but rather the sociopolitical and cultural biases of the mid-20th century. To fully understand this shift, we must engage critically with both the original languages of the Bible and the historical context of translation.

The Introduction of “Homosexual” in the 1946 RSV

Before 1946, terms such as “sodomites” or “abusers of themselves with mankind” were used in place of what we now read as “homosexual” in modern translations. However, these earlier terms, drawn from the King James Version (KJV) and other older translations, are themselves vague and laden with interpretative challenges. When we turn to the original Greek text, the words in question—arsenokoitai and malakoi—appear in passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. These words have generated significant debate among scholars, and their precise meanings remain contested.

The word arsenokoitai seems to be a compound of the Greek terms for “man” (arsen) and “bed” (koite), which some interpret to mean “men who lie with men.” Yet, this term does not directly equate to the modern concept of homosexuality, which refers to a person’s enduring romantic or sexual attraction to individuals of the same sex. Moreover, malakoi has been interpreted in various ways, from “soft” or “effeminate” to “morally weak,” none of which inherently suggest a condemnation of same-sex relationships.

Translation and Cultural Context

The 1946 decision to render these terms as “homosexual” was deeply influenced by the cultural context of post-World War II America, a time when homosexual behavior was pathologized and criminalized. The mid-20th century saw homosexuality classified as a mental disorder by medical professionals and treated as a moral failing by much of society. It is no coincidence that during this period, religious institutions increasingly sought to align their teachings with prevailing cultural attitudes. In this environment, the introduction of the word “homosexual” into the Bible was less an act of faithful translation and more an imposition of contemporary moral and political values onto ancient texts.

It is critical to recognize that earlier translations, such as the KJV (1611) and Douay-Rheims (1582), did not use the term “homosexual” because the concept as we understand it today did not exist. Homosexuality as a term was not coined until the late 19th century, and it referred to a fixed identity—an understanding of sexual orientation that would have been foreign to the biblical authors. Thus, to claim that the Bible condemns homosexuality based on modern translations is to retroject contemporary understandings of sexuality onto ancient texts that operated with a very different worldview.

The Ethical Implications of Translation

The introduction of “homosexual” into the 1946 RSV translation had profound ethical implications, particularly for LGBTQ+ individuals. The use of this term has contributed to decades of condemnation, ostracization, and even violence against queer individuals within Christian communities. However, a growing body of scholarship, including works by biblical scholars such as Dale Martin, Ed Oxford, and Matthew Vines, challenges these interpretations and calls for a reevaluation of how the Bible is used to justify homophobia.

To read the Bible responsibly, we must acknowledge the historical contexts in which both the original texts and their translations were produced. Translation is never a neutral act; it is always influenced by the social, cultural, and theological concerns of its time. Recognizing this allows us to approach scripture with humility, understanding that our current translations reflect not just the biblical world but also the biases and limitations of those who have translated it.

Conclusion: Toward a Faithful and Compassionate Reading

If we take seriously the mandate of Christian ethics to love our neighbors as ourselves, we must also take seriously the responsibility to ensure that our interpretations of scripture do not cause harm. The decision to translate arsenokoitai and malakoi as “homosexual” was a product of a specific historical moment, and as such, it demands critical scrutiny. By imposing modern categories of sexuality onto ancient texts, we risk distorting the original message and, in doing so, perpetuating injustice.

Moving forward, it is essential for the church to engage in rigorous, nuanced, and compassionate conversations about the Bible’s teaching on sexuality. We must be willing to ask difficult questions about translation, history, and the ethical use of scripture in contemporary debates. Ultimately, the call to follow Christ is a call to love—one that transcends the boundaries of sexual orientation and challenges us to create a more inclusive, just, and faithful church.

Let us approach the Bible not as a weapon to divide, but as a text that invites us into deeper love and understanding for all of God’s people.