Shane Hoving on unsplash
Karen Hollis | March 15, 2026 Lent 4 – Affirm
1 Corinthians 6:1-11 Can it be that when one of you has a dispute with another, you dare to have your case tried before the heathen, instead of before Christ’s people? Do you not know that Christ’s people will try the world? And if the world is to be tried by you, are you unfit to try the most trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to try angels – to say nothing of the affairs of this life? Why, then, if you have cases relating to the affairs of this life, do you try them before those who carry no weight with the church? To your shame I ask it. Can it be that there is not one among you wise enough to decide between two of your fellow followers? Must a follower sue a fellow follower? in front of unbelievers? To begin with, it is undoubtedly a loss to you to have lawsuits with one another. Why not rather let yourselves be wronged? Why not rather let yourselves be cheated? Instead of this, you wrong and cheat others yourselves – yes, even other followers! Do you not know that wrongdoers will have no share in God’s kingdom? Do not be deceived. No one who is immoral, nor an idolater, nor an adulterer, or licentious, or a sexual pervert, or a thief, or covetous, or a drunkard, or abusive, or grasping, will have any share in God’s kingdom. Such some of you used to be; but you washed yourselves clean. You became Christ’s people! You were pronounced righteous through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the Spirit of our God!
Ok, let’s get right into it. Let us pray:
May the words of my mouth and the meditations of all our hearts be reflections of your word to us today, in Christ’s name we pray. Amen
So, Paul has heard that there is some conflict within the Christian community at Corinth that has led to lawsuits between people. On the face of it, one might wonder why he is making such a big deal about it. Let’s take a quick dive into the context. First of all, when we have an argument, the place in which we choose to resolve that argument reveals where we place our confidence, where our true allegiance lies. That is as true today as it was then. Paul doesn’t think too highly of the judicial system – they have different values and corrupt practices that are contrary to the counter cultural Christian community they are trying to establish. If people are taking their disputes outside the faith community, it tells Paul the church is failing to be the church.1 He is upset because people are not taking responsibility for one another, which is causing unity is breaking down. So, he calling them to bind together and shift not only their minds and hearts toward Christ, but their behaviour.2
Paul is also upset because the only people with enough resources to file a lawsuit are the more powerful. The defendants are likely peasants who are subject to the legal system, which is biased toward the wealthy. We’re going to come back to this point about power when we get into the translations.
Paul’s suggestion is to appoint judges within the Christian community. This was a normal practice within the Jewish community during times of Diaspora, so he’s not reinventing the wheel here. He says to appoint a judge, even if the person you choose is despised in the church . . . because the ones who are despised are the judges in the pagan system. But when they are serving within the context of the Christian community, their status and practices outside of the church are not relevant.3
Paul is emphatic that they need to find a way of resolving their disputes that is consistent with their new identity in Christ, because they don’t want to be like people who exhibit behaviours that are inconsistent with experiencing the kindom of God: one who is immoral, an idolater, an adulterer, licentious, a sexual pervert, a thief, covetous, and so on.
Now we’ve gotten to the place in the scripture that is relevant for today’s affirm service. In the 1946 Revised Standard Version of the Bible, licentious and sexual pervert were combined and translated homosexual. The Greek words are malakos and arsenokoitēs (ar-sen-o-koi-tace).
Malakos has often been unfairly translated effeminate, because it means soft . . . but not in that way. Soft, like someone who lacks courage. “A number of ancient writers used the term malakoi to condemn men for their laziness, cowardice, and extravagance.4 The word has also been used to describe women (everyone knows we’re just softies), also fine clothing. While it was not commonly used in the context of sexuality, it was more frequently applied to men who fell head over heels for a woman and forgot everything else.
Arsenokoitēs (ar-sen-o-koi-tace) is rarely used in ancient writings, in fact Paul’s use of it in 1 Corinthians is considered to be the first use in ancient literature. New Testament professor Angela Parker referred to it as “one of Paul’s made up words.” It is broken down into arsen, which means male, and koites (koitace), meaning bed. But the component parts don’t necessarily tell us what it means.5 According to Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the ancient world were pederasty (a man with a boy), prostitution, and sex between masters and slaves. Pederasty was so common that the philosopher Philo, a contemporary of Paul, 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.6 Paul may have been taking a similar approach, but let’s dig deeper.
According to scholar Dale Martin, to really understand a word, we need to examine it in as many different contexts as possible.7 So, where do we find the word arsenokoitēs? We find it in lists. In 2 important sources, there is a list of economic sins and sexual sins. “Don’t arsenokoites” is on the economic list. It’s an issue of money, power, unjust exploitation, not sex.8 Remember, Paul was calling out the powerful people in the Corinth community for taking peasants to a corrupt court. He says, don’t abuse your power.
Over the centuries, arsenokoites in First Corinthians has been mis-translated in a number of different ways, one of which is sodomite. While the Christian interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah appears to strengthen the argument that there is an anti-homosexual thread running through scripture . . . that argument breaks down further when we learn that in Judaism, sodomite has a completely different meaning.
According to the Talmud, the books of commentary on the Hebrew Bible, “the people of Sodom said: Since we live in a land from which bread comes and has the dust of gold, we have everything that we need. Why do we need travelers, as they come only to divest us of our property? Come, let us cause the proper treatment of travelers to be forgotten from our land.9 The Talmud basically understands Sodom’s overwhelming crime to be the fact that they closed off their gates to strangers. Because the Jews were once strangers in the land of Egypt, they are endowed with the moral imperative to care for those in need; shunning travelers, who are in a position of vulnerability, is a big transgression.10 So, when we unpack the original meaning, we find that a sodomite is one who is inhospitable to strangers, which has nothing to do with same sex attraction . . . highlighting further the importance of understanding the context of the stories.
Let’s return to Paul, who has written to the church at Corinth, telling them to be responsible and accountable to one another, and refrain from behaviours that are inconsistent with experiencing the kindom of God. He includes these 2 words that mean lazy or extravagant and pederasty. In 1946, the committee editing the Revised Standard Version, combined the 2 words and translated them homosexual. One can only guess why they did that. In the early 1900’s, people didn’t really understand homosexuality. Many people associated it with predatory behaviours, so perhaps the committee mis-labeled what they feared and didn’t understand. The volume they published was the Revised Standard Version. This was the standard, so other teams of people making their own translations of the Bible used the standard as a resource . . . and then it was everywhere.
Until I saw the movie 1946 that really exposes this whole issue with translation, I didn’t understand that the word homosexual ever appeared in any version of the bible. I had never seen it. I thought the whole conversation about homosexuality and scripture was more conceptual than anything else. I didn’t know how many people had read those words and either been harmed by them or empowered by them.
I think what really stands out to me is the scapegoating of the queer community. Every time the text is mistranslated, they take an awful, pervasive problem in the world and in the church, and just disappear it. Nothing to see here. And instead read into the text fears and biases that fit their narrative. I’ve been really angry this week as I’ve been working on this topic and have had to pause several times to let God in. Reconciliation begins with airing it out, telling the truth, educating one another, and praying together. So I invite us to take in this information and let God in. As we move into open space, I invite us to prayer . . . for the church, for the queer community, for those who have been harmed by mis-translation or by someone in power in the church . . . and whatever is on your hearts today.
Candles
rocks
write prayers
anointing for healing
Open Space:
How does the error in the 1946 translation impact your view of scripture?
What questions arise for you?
1 Interpretation: First Corinthians, Hayes, p. 9
2 Interpretation: First Corinthians, Hayes, p. 93
3 Interpretation: First Corinthians, Hayes, p. 9
4 Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: gender and sexuality in Biblical interpretation, 44-45. (referenced in God and the Gay Christian)
5 Matthew Vines. God and the Gay Christian. p. 123.
6 Matthew Vines. God and the Gay Christian. p. 123
7 God and the Gay Christian. p. 124
8 Kathy Baldock, in movie 1946.
9 Talmud Sanhedrin 109a
10 https://forward.com/community/458595/in-jewish-tradition-sodomy-doesnt-mean-what-you-think/