“Wasn’t The Word ‘Homosexual’ Only Recently Added By Modern Translators Of The Bible And Therefore They Introduced An Improper Bias?”
“Wasn’t The Word ‘Homosexual’ Only Recently Added By Modern Translators Of The Bible And Therefore They Introduced An Improper Bias?”
By Scott Wakefield, Lead Pastor
By Scott Wakefield, Lead Pastor
This question has gained traction in recent years, particularly through articles like this, by Ed Oxford, and short video clips on social media—most notably this 3.5-minute trailer for a documentary-style film on the subject.
The core claim is that modern Bible translators inserted the word “homosexual” into English Bibles only recently—starting in 1946—and that doing so imposed homophobic bias onto the text of Scripture. According to this view, the term “homosexual” doesn’t belong in the Bible because it reflects modern cultural prejudice, not biblical truth.
However, arguments like these fundamentally miss the point. They rely on a narrow tracing of the modern English word “homosexual” while sidestepping Paul’s original language and intent. The issue isn’t simply when the word “homosexual” entered English translations, but whether it faithfully communicates the meaning of the Greek word Paul actually used—arsenokoitai.
So the short answer to the question is: yes and no.
Here’s the longer—and nerdier—explanation:
Paul uses the Greek word arsenokoitai, a coined term (neologism) formed from two Greek words found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament),[2] particularly in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13:
Together, they describe “men who bed men.” This compound term almost certainly reflects Paul’s deliberate linguistic echo of Leviticus’s prohibition of male-male sexual relations. In other words, Paul isn’t inventing a new concept—he’s reinforcing a long-standing biblical ethic.
More importantly, arsenokoitai refers to practice, not merely inclination. Paul’s usage throughout the New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:8–10; Romans 1:18–32) supports the conclusion that he condemned all forms of same-sex sexual activity, not just exploitative or abusive ones. This aligns with Jewish moral tradition, which consistently regarded same-sex sexual behavior as para physin (“against nature”),[3] regardless of context or consent.
So no—Paul is not making nuanced distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable forms of same-sex relationships, as some modern arguments claim. His use of arsenokoitai is categorical. It stands in continuity with Scripture’s broader moral framework, not in opposition to it.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter whether the Revised Standard Version (1946) was the first to translate arsenokoitai as “homosexual”. What matters is whether the word “homosexual” accurately represents Paul’s original meaning. And given the linguistic, contextual, and theological evidence, it clearly does.[4]
Arguments that claim otherwise are not only built on shaky linguistic ground, but are using selective or misleading historical claims to reinterpret Scripture through the lens of modern identity politics and the worship of self-defined desire.
The core claim is that modern Bible translators inserted the word “homosexual” into English Bibles only recently—starting in 1946—and that doing so imposed homophobic bias onto the text of Scripture. According to this view, the term “homosexual” doesn’t belong in the Bible because it reflects modern cultural prejudice, not biblical truth.
However, arguments like these fundamentally miss the point. They rely on a narrow tracing of the modern English word “homosexual” while sidestepping Paul’s original language and intent. The issue isn’t simply when the word “homosexual” entered English translations, but whether it faithfully communicates the meaning of the Greek word Paul actually used—arsenokoitai.
So the short answer to the question is: yes and no.
- Yes, it’s true that English translations only began using “homosexual” in the mid-20th century.[1]
- But no, this doesn’t mean bias was introduced or that the translation is flawed. In fact, “homosexual” is a faithful rendering of what Paul meant in the Greek. It communicates his intent clearly and accurately in modern terms.
Here’s the longer—and nerdier—explanation:
Paul uses the Greek word arsenokoitai, a coined term (neologism) formed from two Greek words found in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament),[2] particularly in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13:
- arsen (male)
- koite (bed or lying with)
Together, they describe “men who bed men.” This compound term almost certainly reflects Paul’s deliberate linguistic echo of Leviticus’s prohibition of male-male sexual relations. In other words, Paul isn’t inventing a new concept—he’s reinforcing a long-standing biblical ethic.
More importantly, arsenokoitai refers to practice, not merely inclination. Paul’s usage throughout the New Testament (e.g., 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; 1 Timothy 1:8–10; Romans 1:18–32) supports the conclusion that he condemned all forms of same-sex sexual activity, not just exploitative or abusive ones. This aligns with Jewish moral tradition, which consistently regarded same-sex sexual behavior as para physin (“against nature”),[3] regardless of context or consent.
So no—Paul is not making nuanced distinctions between acceptable and unacceptable forms of same-sex relationships, as some modern arguments claim. His use of arsenokoitai is categorical. It stands in continuity with Scripture’s broader moral framework, not in opposition to it.
Bottom line: It doesn’t matter whether the Revised Standard Version (1946) was the first to translate arsenokoitai as “homosexual”. What matters is whether the word “homosexual” accurately represents Paul’s original meaning. And given the linguistic, contextual, and theological evidence, it clearly does.[4]
Arguments that claim otherwise are not only built on shaky linguistic ground, but are using selective or misleading historical claims to reinterpret Scripture through the lens of modern identity politics and the worship of self-defined desire.
Footnotes:
*Footnote Note: The numbered link that got you here only gets you here. I.e., you may have to scroll down to find the note you're looking for and you'll definitely have to scroll all the way back up to get back to where you came from. Also, our blog site doesn't yet format correctly, so some things like bullets, numbers, line spacing, and superscripts may be wonky.
1 The 1946 Revised Standard Version was apparently the first to do so in English, using “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Note that you won’t find the word “homosexual” in modern updates to the RSV. Also note that this entire line of questioning ignores non-English translations, let alone the actual Greek text.
2 The Septuagint (often referred to by the shorthand “LXX”) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was completed by Jewish scholars about 200 BC. It was the main Bible in use by the time of the arrival of Christ and, among other things, it provides tons of insight into prevailing Jewish thought.
3 In all of history, there is no normative Jewish tradition that interpreted any single Scriptural text as sanctioning homosexuality in any form because it goes against God’s intent in created order as established in Genesis 1-2. In case you come across it, sometimes the English transliteration (the writing of a foreign language into roughly equivalent English letters) of “para physin” (“against nature” or “contrary to nature”) will be written as “para physis”, which is simply the lexical form and means the same thing as “para physin” (which is the declined form). Also, in other places in the New Testament—which for the Christian interpreter holds hermeneutical authority for understanding the Old Testament—both Paul and Jesus use language of those who are ‘against nature’ and God’s law to explicitly condemn all forms of sexual immorality outside of monogamous man-woman marriage (Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:9–10). Their arguments, which are predicated on their Jewish understanding that sexual difference is built into God’s created intent and is definitional for marriage, clearly applied to homosexuality, especially as there were known homosexual practices in the Ancient Near East and the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of it! Simply because Jesus or Paul don’t use the English word “homosexual” per se—i.e., because they used ‘against nature,’ ‘porneia,’ ‘arsenekoitai,’ and ‘against God’s law/order’—doesn’t mean they didn’t clearly forbid it. In the end, to claim the English translation “homosexual” is a problem because of its recent introduction is a simplistic anachronistic argument that commits the word-concept fallacy and should be rejected outright by all honest people and scholars. See this sermon, “What Does Jesus Say About Homosexuality?” for more, especially from about 13:45-15:00ff.
4 Here are 11 arguments for why “arsenokoitai” is justly translated as “homosexual” summarized from Robert A. J. Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001). Gagnon’s book is a 550 page tome widely considered the most comprehensive work on the Bible's view of homosexuality. Pp 303 39 are a pretty definitive argument for why Paul explicitly condemns homosexual practice. Quite a few (mostly) liberal scholars who have studied and written on these questions about the Bible and homosexuality acknowledge as much and say, in effect, ‘If you're going to make an argument for homosexuality not being condemned from the Bible, it's going to have to include philosophical and cultural argumentation that basically ignores the Scriptural text as defended by Gagnon.’
*Footnote Note: The numbered link that got you here only gets you here. I.e., you may have to scroll down to find the note you're looking for and you'll definitely have to scroll all the way back up to get back to where you came from. Also, our blog site doesn't yet format correctly, so some things like bullets, numbers, line spacing, and superscripts may be wonky.
1 The 1946 Revised Standard Version was apparently the first to do so in English, using “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Note that you won’t find the word “homosexual” in modern updates to the RSV. Also note that this entire line of questioning ignores non-English translations, let alone the actual Greek text.
2 The Septuagint (often referred to by the shorthand “LXX”) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament that was completed by Jewish scholars about 200 BC. It was the main Bible in use by the time of the arrival of Christ and, among other things, it provides tons of insight into prevailing Jewish thought.
3 In all of history, there is no normative Jewish tradition that interpreted any single Scriptural text as sanctioning homosexuality in any form because it goes against God’s intent in created order as established in Genesis 1-2. In case you come across it, sometimes the English transliteration (the writing of a foreign language into roughly equivalent English letters) of “para physin” (“against nature” or “contrary to nature”) will be written as “para physis”, which is simply the lexical form and means the same thing as “para physin” (which is the declined form). Also, in other places in the New Testament—which for the Christian interpreter holds hermeneutical authority for understanding the Old Testament—both Paul and Jesus use language of those who are ‘against nature’ and God’s law to explicitly condemn all forms of sexual immorality outside of monogamous man-woman marriage (Matthew 19:4–6; Mark 10:6–9; 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; 1 Timothy 1:9–10). Their arguments, which are predicated on their Jewish understanding that sexual difference is built into God’s created intent and is definitional for marriage, clearly applied to homosexuality, especially as there were known homosexual practices in the Ancient Near East and the Old Testament Scriptures spoke of it! Simply because Jesus or Paul don’t use the English word “homosexual” per se—i.e., because they used ‘against nature,’ ‘porneia,’ ‘arsenekoitai,’ and ‘against God’s law/order’—doesn’t mean they didn’t clearly forbid it. In the end, to claim the English translation “homosexual” is a problem because of its recent introduction is a simplistic anachronistic argument that commits the word-concept fallacy and should be rejected outright by all honest people and scholars. See this sermon, “What Does Jesus Say About Homosexuality?” for more, especially from about 13:45-15:00ff.
4 Here are 11 arguments for why “arsenokoitai” is justly translated as “homosexual” summarized from Robert A. J. Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001). Gagnon’s book is a 550 page tome widely considered the most comprehensive work on the Bible's view of homosexuality. Pp 303 39 are a pretty definitive argument for why Paul explicitly condemns homosexual practice. Quite a few (mostly) liberal scholars who have studied and written on these questions about the Bible and homosexuality acknowledge as much and say, in effect, ‘If you're going to make an argument for homosexuality not being condemned from the Bible, it's going to have to include philosophical and cultural argumentation that basically ignores the Scriptural text as defended by Gagnon.’
Posted in Great Questions Answered