1 Corinthians 6:9

Paul begins with a general category ('the unrighteous') and then specifies it with a list of examples. This suggests that the list is not exhaustive, but illustrative of what it means to be 'unrighteous' in a sense that excludes from the kingdom of God. Unrighteousness here is not just legal, but moral and spiritual, a way of life that contradicts the character of God.

The future indicative is a strong statement about the ultimate outcome of a life characterized by these practices. 'Inheriting the kingdom of God' is a metaphor for full participation in eschatological salvation. The implication is that the habitual and unrepentant practice of these sins is incompatible with life in the kingdom.

The meaning of μαλακοὶ in this context is debated. Traditionally it has been understood as 'effeminate' or 'men who assume a passive role in sexual acts with other men'. It can also refer to general moral weakness or lack of discipline. Its appearance alongside ἀρσενοκοῖται suggests a connection with sexuality, possibly referring to the passive partner in a homosexual relationship, or to the moral 'softness' that leads to sexual indulgence. It is important to note that it does not refer to sexual orientation per se, but to a perceived behavior or characteristic.

See 'extra_data' section for a deeper analysis of this key word.

Patristic

The Church Fathers consistently interpreted ἀρσενοκοῖται and μαλακοὶ as references to sexual practices between males, condemning them as contrary to natural and divine law. John Chrysostom addresses these terms directly in his Homily XVII on 1 Corinthians (PG 61, 135-144), explaining μαλακοὶ as those who passively submit to homosexual acts and ἀρσενοκοῖται as those who perform them actively, characterizing both behaviors as shameful and incompatible with the Kingdom of God. Even more extensively, in his Homily IV on Romans (on Rom 1:26-27; PG 60, 415-422), Chrysostom develops a detailed condemnation of sexual relations between males, describing them as an inversion of the created order and a dishonor to both the active and passive partners. Other Fathers expressed the same position: Tertullian explicitly condemns male homosexual acts in De pudicitia (ch. IV) and De monogamia; Clement of Alexandria censures them in Paedagogus II, 10 (PG 8, 497-500), citing the example of Sodom and appealing to natural law; and John of Damascus incorporates this tradition in De fide orthodoxa IV, 24 (PG 94, 1205-1208). None of these authors articulates a distinction between 'orientation' and 'act' in modern terms; their condemnation falls upon the conduct itself, considered objectively disordered. The unanimity of this interpretation in the patristic tradition is solid, though the precise exegetical nuances surrounding the translation of ἀρσενοκοῖται have been the subject of modern scholarly debate.

Reformed

The Reformed tradition, following Calvin, has interpreted this passage as a clear condemnation of homosexual practices, considering them a violation of God's moral law and a manifestation of human depravity. It is emphasized that those who persist in such sins without repentance are not true heirs of the kingdom. Tension arises in pastoral application: how to reconcile the condemnation of sin with God's grace and the need to welcome all sinners who seek repentance and transformation, without compromising biblical truth about holiness.

Interpretive tension: The tension within the Reformed system is not about the definition of sin, but about how to apply the warning of 'not inheriting the kingdom' in light of the perseverance of the saints and sovereign grace. Does it imply that a person struggling with these inclinations but seeking holiness is excluded? Or does it refer to habitual and unrepentant practice? The text does not detail the mechanics of grace in relation to personal struggle, requiring additional theological inferences.

Arminian

The Arminian tradition, following Wesley, also condemns the sexual practices mentioned in the list, including homosexual ones, as contrary to God's will and exclusionary from the kingdom if persisted in. It emphasizes human freedom to choose sin or holiness, and the need for repentance and continuous transformation. Tension arises in how to balance the seriousness of the warning with the universality of God's grace and the possibility that a believer might 'fall from grace' if they persist in such practices, which the text does not explicitly develop.

Interpretive tension: The tension within the Arminian system focuses on the relationship between Paul's warning and the possibility of losing salvation. If the practice of these sins excludes from the kingdom, how does this relate to prevenient grace and the possibility of continuous repentance? The text affirms the consequence of habitual practice, but does not elaborate on the dynamics of grace and human responsibility in the process of sanctification and the possibility of apostasy.

Contemporary

In contemporary debate, there are diverse interpretations of ἀρσενοκοῖται. Some scholars argue that it refers specifically to pederasty or exploitative sexual acts, not to consensual, committed homosexual relationships. Others maintain that the word is a Pauline neologism combining 'male' (ἄρσην) and 'bed/sex' (κοίτη), referring to any type of sexual relationship between men, in line with the Old Testament prohibition. There is a general consensus that the word condemns some form of sexual activity between men, but the exact scope and application to modern categories of sexual identity are subjects of intense debate. Scholars like Robert Gagnon and Richard Hays advocate a broad interpretation that includes all homosexual practices, while others like Dale Martin and Bernadette Brooten argue for a more restricted reading to exploitation or specific roles.