Some thoughts or questions on 1 Cor. 6:9-11, especially v11

[Arthur81]

"...to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." (1Cor 1:2, NET2.1) To the Christians, as the verse preceding the passage in question also shows

"But you yourselves wrong and cheat, and you do this to your brothers and sisters!" (1Cor 6:8, NET2.1)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1Cor 6:9-11, NET2.1)

Paul is definitely speaking to professing Christian believers as the earlier verses show. Now....

A parable: a lad in his 20s grew up in the church and professed his faith in his early teens. He is in a solid, Bible-teaching church, and it is known of him that the "fruit of the Spirit" beams from his life. It is true that "by their fruits you shall know them", so the lad is a born from above child of God for he truly loves the brethren. Now, he is emotionally, lovingly and sexually attracted to other males 100%, but to females 0%. Always has been that way for him. He has a best male friend since high school whom he loves, whose nature is the same, and with whom he has intimate relations regularly. Considering the passages above, and it is clearly addressed to professing Christians who show the evidence of regeneration and justification, I wonder on these matters -

1. Since the "kingdom of God" is presented in the future tense, it must refer to the future kingdom prepared from the creation for the sheep as in Matt. 25:34, correct?

2. The status of the believers is stated as a past accomplishment, a done deal: "were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified", correct?

Is salvation actually not all of grace, but by grace/faith plus works?
Is it possible to know if you are truly saved or not? Or, is it merely a "lively hope"?
Are the Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland type of faith healers right, and God will cure/heal the lad?
Or, can this lad lose his salvation if he does not embrace the idea his love and sex activity is sin? Does v9 even refer to what this lad experiences?
If he accepts it is sin, and when he on occasion falls, and he earnestly repents, but then falls again... but is killed in a car accident before he repents again, is he going to hell?

The focus seems to always be on v9, but how to deal with v11?

 

[marks]

"...to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." (1Cor 1:2, NET2.1) To the Christians, as the verse preceding the passage in question also shows

"But you yourselves wrong and cheat, and you do this to your brothers and sisters!" (1Cor 6:8, NET2.1)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1Cor 6:9-11, NET2.1)

Paul is definitely speaking to professing Christian believers as the earlier verses show. Now....

A parable: a lad in his 20s grew up in the church and professed his faith in his early teens. He is in a solid, Bible-teaching church, and it is known of him that the "fruit of the Spirit" beams from his life. It is true that "by their fruits you shall know them", so the lad is a born from above child of God for he truly loves the brethren. Now, he is emotionally, lovingly and sexually attracted to other males 100%, but to females 0%. Always has been that way for him. He has a best male friend since high school whom he loves, whose nature is the same, and with whom he has intimate relations regularly. Considering the passages above, and it is clearly addressed to professing Christians who show the evidence of regeneration and justification, I wonder on these matters -

1. Since the "kingdom of God" is presented in the future tense, it must refer to the future kingdom prepared from the creation for the sheep as in Matt. 25:34, correct?

2. The status of the believers is stated as a past accomplishment, a done deal: "were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified", correct?

Is salvation actually not all of grace, but by grace/faith plus works?
Is it possible to know if you are truly saved or not? Or, is it merely a "lively hope"?
Are the Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland type of faith healers right, and God will cure/heal the lad?
Or, can this lad lose his salvation if he does not embrace the idea his love and sex activity is sin? Does v9 even refer to what this lad experiences?
If he accepts it is sin, and when he on occasion falls, and he earnestly repents, but then falls again... but is killed in a car accident before he repents again, is he going to hell?

The focus seems to always be on v9, but how to deal with v11?

Is this hypothetical, or real?

If it's hypothetical, there is no answer, hypotheticals aren't real life, and you can color them any shade you like.

If it's a real situation, then the appropriate thing is the person seek spiritual counsel from older Christians.

You are contriving a situation . . . "This IS a born again . . . they DO commit exclusionary sins . . ."

Sinners are redeemed by Jesus, and are transformed to be like Jesus, but not necessarily all at once. But we should endeavor to put away all sins from our lives.

To me this passage is telling us that adulterers won't inherit the kingdom, and you used to be an adulterer, but you were cleansed of that, so don't commit adultery any longer, instead, flee from it!

So that is what should be done, not seeking to justify it.

We are saved by Christ's death and resurrection, so that, among other things, we can stop sinning. We are not saved based on what we do or not do, and that doesn't change. But the true reality of salvation - rebirth - is that we are ceasing from unrighteousness.

If we are not, we need to ask, are we reborn?

Much love!

 

[ScottA]

"...to the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, and called to be saints, with all those in every place who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours." (1Cor 1:2, NET2.1) To the Christians, as the verse preceding the passage in question also shows

"But you yourselves wrong and cheat, and you do this to your brothers and sisters!" (1Cor 6:8, NET2.1)

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." (1Cor 6:9-11, NET2.1)

Paul is definitely speaking to professing Christian believers as the earlier verses show. Now....

A parable: a lad in his 20s grew up in the church and professed his faith in his early teens. He is in a solid, Bible-teaching church, and it is known of him that the "fruit of the Spirit" beams from his life. It is true that "by their fruits you shall know them", so the lad is a born from above child of God for he truly loves the brethren. Now, he is emotionally, lovingly and sexually attracted to other males 100%, but to females 0%. Always has been that way for him. He has a best male friend since high school whom he loves, whose nature is the same, and with whom he has intimate relations regularly. Considering the passages above, and it is clearly addressed to professing Christians who show the evidence of regeneration and justification, I wonder on these matters -

1. Since the "kingdom of God" is presented in the future tense, it must refer to the future kingdom prepared from the creation for the sheep as in Matt. 25:34, correct?

2. The status of the believers is stated as a past accomplishment, a done deal: "were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified", correct?

Is salvation actually not all of grace, but by grace/faith plus works?
Is it possible to know if you are truly saved or not? Or, is it merely a "lively hope"?
Are the Oral Roberts, Kenneth Copeland type of faith healers right, and God will cure/heal the lad?
Or, can this lad lose his salvation if he does not embrace the idea his love and sex activity is sin? Does v9 even refer to what this lad experiences?
If he accepts it is sin, and when he on occasion falls, and he earnestly repents, but then falls again... but is killed in a car accident before he repents again, is he going to hell?

The focus seems to always be on v9, but how to deal with v11?

It is for this reason that Jesus warned, "There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth", and to many He would say, "I never knew you."

By what rationale can we understand these matters then? Did God not use Pharaoh and other evil kings, even the words of a donkey, to minister and bring about His purpose which is otherwise holy and righteous? Indeed He did.

But each case is different, and the circumstances are as unique and as numerous as there are people. But the point remains the same, that we see the error and turn from it. Even then, the matter remains the judgment of God alone.

As for the boy...does he not serve two masters? And what is the promise for putting the kingdom of God and His righteousness first?

 

[Jim C]

The problem is when you try to separate gay as its own classification.  Any intimacies outside of what  GOD defines as marriage in scripture all fall under the category of sexual immorality. Adultry, premarital, gay, etc all fall under the same heading.
As Christian brothers & sisters, we can gently encourage them to stop, but it is not our place to condemn or judge them. That is purely between them and God, along with their state of salvation.
The exception would be if they are members of a church, in which case the Elders of the church would called upon to enforce Church Discipline.

 

[marks]

The problem is when you try to separate gay as its own classification.  Any intimacies outside of what  GOD defines as marriage in scripture all fall under the category of sexual immorality. Adultry, premarital, gay, etc all fall under the same heading.
As Christian brothers & sisters, we can gently encourage them to stop, but it is not our place to condemn or judge them. That is purely between them and God, along with their state of salvation.
The exception would be if they are members of a church, in which case the Elders of the church would called upon to enforce Church Discipline.

And we shouldn't parse between this sin or that sin. ALL sin is sin. People rank sins according to various schemes and ideas. I think it has a lot to do with a person's history and what they've dealt with in life, from themselves and others. Regardless, either we are walking in the Spirit, or we are walking according to flesh. All that is not if faith is sin.

Much love!

 

[MatthewG]

Jesus never spoke out about homosexuality did he? During his entite gospel ministry he never once said anything about it.

 

[marks]

Jesus never spoke out about homosexuality did he? During his entite gospel ministry he never once said anything about it.

While Jesus didn't name homosexuality, He excluded it in saying that a man and woman are to marry, period. He also gave blanket affirmation of the Law and the Prophets, which prohibits the practice.

Much love!

 

[MatthewG]

Jesus came to pay for sin, and for people to die to sin…

Why cant people love the human being…

Jesus loved the people who beat him to death, and the israelites who murdered him…

People who hate other human beings, are murderers.

And being a murderer in a sense us, as individuals put Jesus life on the line to be killed…

Horrible. Thank God he loved those murderers… asking “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”

 

[MatthewG]

Its super hard to suffer for Christ.

People like to pick and nick at things they dont like about a person instead of just loving them.

Jesus was only ever hard on the Pharisees (those who were putting bondage on others not lifting a finger to help.)

Other than that He allowed as many who wanted to start turning towards God, to come to Him freely and he answered questions and overall he loved people…

If he never loved a person he was a sinner, by default.

So think about that.

 

[Arthur81]

The replies to the OP I've seen so far have confirmed what I have suspected about the modern translations of this passage. One remarked about the error of setting up a gay category, and I agree, that is the big problem. I quoted from the NET Bible to make a point, but I'd NEVER use this translation of this passage. Like most modern versions, starting with the 1946 RSV, the modern word and psychological concept of homosexuality is read into the passage. You'll notice that in my parable or example, I described desire, conduct and behavior and did not label it. The OT Hebrew and NT Greek have no equivalent word as homosexual. The modern translations describing passive and active homosexual conduct seem to be giving a misleading stereotype. Using the modern idea of homosexuality, it is impossible to make it work with v11 without introducing conflicts with other Bible doctrines.

The traditional translations of the KJV, RV, ASV and YLT render the passage completely different, and the traditional understanding can be seen to work with v11. To explain, you'd use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary to fully understand the older translations. For one thing, the Greek malakos is translated separately from the following word arsenokoites and "effeminate" is not a word of sexual conduct at all. It means voluptuous or self-indulgent. IT is to twist the English language to make that a word of sexual conduct. Next is how the traditional translations render arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10. Checking the KJV wording we find "abusers" and "defile". Go to the older 1828 Webster's and we find -

"ABU'SER, n. s as z. One who abuses, in speech or behavior; one that deceives; a ravisher; a sodomite. 1 Cor 6."
"RAV'ISHER, n. 1. One that takes by violence. 2. One that forces a woman to his carnal embrace."
"DEFILE, v.t. ... 5. To corrupt chastity; to debauch; to violate; to tarnish the purity of character by lewdness.
Schechem defiled Dinah. Gen 34.

For the traditional understanding of "effeminate", again from the 1828 Webster's -

EFFEM'INATE, a. [L. effoeminatus, from effoeminor, to grow or make womanish, from foemina, a woman. See Woman.]
1. Having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; tender; womanish; voluptuous.
The king, by his voluptuous life and mean marriage, became effeminate, and less sensible of honor.
2. Womanish; weak; resembling the practice or qualities of the sex; as an effeminate peace; an effeminate life.

From Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - malakos
"μαλακοί ] effeminates , commonly understood as 'qui muliebria patiuntur' , but with no sufficient evidence from the usage of the language (the passages in Wetstein and Kypke, even Dion. Hal. vii. 2, do not prove the point); moreover, such catamites ( molles ) were called πόρνοι or κίναιδοι . One does not see, moreover, why precisely this sin should be mentioned twice over in different aspects. Rather therefore: effeminate luxurious livers . Comp Aristotle, Eth. vii. 7 : μαλακὸς καὶ τρυφῶν , Xen. Mem. ii. 1, 20, also μαλακῶς , iii. 11. 10 : τρυφὴ δὲ καὶ μαλθακία , Plato, Rep. p. 590 B."

1 Corinthians 6 - Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 Corinthians 6, Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary focuses on the Greek text, using an abundance of sources and authors to illustrate meaning

www.studylight.org

The Expositor's Greek Testament, Sir William Robertson Nicoll CH (October 10, 1851 - May 4, 1923)
μαλακοί , soft, voluptuous , appears in this connexion to signify general addiction to sins of the flesh; lexical ground is wanting for the sense of pathici , suggested to some interpreters by the following word and by the use of molles in Latin.

1 Corinthians 6 - The Expositor's Greek Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

1 Corinthians 6, The Expositor's Greek Testament, One of over 125 Bible commentaries freely available, this commentary ranks among the most important on the Greek text of the New Testament from the 19th century

www.studylight.org

As historically understood, this is about a specific conduct of male on male sexual behavior. It does not describe the lad I portrayed in the example or parable. I would never use a modern Bible on this topic and this passage. The only variance in the Greek of any importance is the first mention of "kingdom of God" is properly "God's kingdom" and where the KJV in v11 reads "in the name of the Lord Jesus", the more accurate manuscripts read "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". No difference in manuscripts support the modern idea of homosexuality. In the KJV, RV, ASV & YLT arsenokoites clearly describes a conduct that is abusive, violent, by force, rape; not merely the action of male to male sex in itself.

The modern translations want to use the modern psychological word and concept of homosexuality which is NOT a choice; and then pervert the meaning to make it a choice. In dealing with a Christian lad who the moderns would call "gay", I'd never use a modern translation, but stay with the KJV, backed up by the RV, ASV & YLT. The modern translations are influenced by the culture wars of the day, and the liberal versions are influenced by feminism and a rejection of the NT explanation of important OT passages.

The Liddell-Scott Jones Lexicon of Classical Greek is interesting about the word malakos and the Greek it gives that means "catamite". It does not match how the modern translations use the Greek.

μαλακός - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

μαλακή, μαλακόν,A soft:I of things subject to touch, εὐνή Il.9. 618; κώεα Od.3.38; τάπης μαλακοῦ ἐρίοιο 4.124; χιτών Il.2.42, PSI 4.364.5 (iii B.C.); πέπλοι Il.24.796; νειὸς μαλακός fresh-ploughed fallow, 18.541; λειμῶνες μαλακοί soft grassy meadows, Od.5.72, cf. Il.14.349; πόας ἄνθος Sapph.54...

lsj.gr

κίναιδος - Ancient Greek (LSJ)

[ῐ], ὁ,A cinaedus, homosexual, gay, catamite, Pl.Grg.494e, etc.: generally, lewd fellow, Herod.2.74, PSI5.483.1 (iii B.C.), Arcesil. ap. Plu.2.126a. Synonyms: βάταλος, λάσταυρος, μαρικᾶς2

lsj.gr

I know this is a sensitive passage and much disagreement over it. But, this is HOW I have come to understand it, and keeping in the historic and traditional faith as presented in the KJV.