Too Feminine For God?

The truth about the word malakoi

How a Soft Word got Hard Edges

What if one of the most weaponized words in modern theology doesn’t actually mean what we’ve been told?

From “weaklings” to “effeminate” to “homosexual,” one single word has sparked major theological shifts and helped shape a masculinity-obsessed church culture Paul never intended.

Malakoi

It appears three times in the Old Testament (Greek Septuagint) and three times in the New Testament.

In every case except one, it describes something physically soft, like speech or clothing:

Proverbs 25:15 – a soft tongue that can break a bone
Proverbs 26:22 – soft speech used deceptively
Job 41:3 (LXX 40:27) – soft words in pleading
Matthew 11:8 & Luke 7:25 – soft robes worn by the rich

Only in 1 Corinthians 6:9 does malakoi refer to people, but Paul gives no explanation, no action, no gender: “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, malakoi, arsenokoitai, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, and robbers.”

Malakoi to the Greeks

Let’s first go back to what this word would have meant in that original language, Greek.

To ancient Greeks, malakoi was a cultural insult, most often towards men who failed to live up to elite ideals of what they thought was masculinity.

Malakoi was an insult to men that were:

Weak: Men that were cowardly, feeble, undisciplined, lacking self-control, overly emotional, laziness, moral weakness, and indulgence.
Indulgent: enjoying too much luxury, eating or drinking excessively, being controlled by lust, greed, food, or attention.
Effeminate: men who behaved “like a woman” and not “like a man”, in a world where women were seen as morally, mentally, emotionally and socially inferior.
Sexual roles and power dynamics: being the passive partner in sex (whether with a man or a woman), enjoying sex “too much,” or even seducing other men’s wives through effeminate charm.

Malakoi was an insult, a cultural slur about failing to live up to elite ideals of masculine self-restraint, power, and dominance.

Malakoi to Paul

Malakoi was an insult in the Greek culture. As is common with insults, it can be aimed and different kinds of people. Which people was Paul referring to?

Was he speaking about the Passive Sexual Partners?

One option is that it was talking about feminine passive sexual partners. When we look at the Greek culture, a terrible common practice of Greek culture was Paiderastia, where older men took younger boys as sexual companions. These younger boys were usually salves or foreigners. If the young boys were not feminine enough, the masters would “make” them feminine. An example of this is Nero and his boy slaves, Sporus. These relationships reflected systems of exploitation and control. Was Paul speaking about this? It could be, but it doesn’t seem likely, since most of these relationships were out of the control of these young boys.

Was he speaking about same sex loving relationships?

Another option, is that he is speaking about men in a mutual, adult same-sex relationship. This doesn’t seem very probable though, as partnerships were hidden and not accepted socially. They existed, as portrayed in ancient literature, but all the stories that portray a loving relationships of people of the same sex, same age, same status, are stories of hiding out of cultural fear. They were not well known. Also, Paul seems to be calling a particular person, not a couple. Biblical scholars (both non affirming and affirming) have found no evidence that early church writers equated malakoi with what we today call gay men or homosexuality.

Was he speaking of the Morally Weak?

This seems to be the best option. Within Greek culture, the weight of the word malakoi was fell mostly on moral failure and weakness of character. A malakos person was viewed as self-indulgent, lazy, undisciplined, dishonest, and ruled by appetite rather than reason. This could include excessive eating, drinking, and sexual indulgence, avoidance of responsibility, laziness, selfishness and depravity.

Malakoi & Women

In an ancient Greek culture where women were believed to be unintelligent or irrational, and incapable of sound reasoning, the greatest insult one could hurl at a man was that he was like a woman.

A view reinforced by philosophers like Aristotle, who claimed women had “weaker reasoning abilities” and were naturally subordinate, women were considered lacking in self-control, driven by desire for food, sex. Views that are still encouraged in certain circles today, they were seen as gossipy and talkative, stirring drama and disrupting order, lazy or unproductive. They were portrayed as deceptive, manipulative, overly emotional, sexually untrustworthy, requiring constant supervision to prevent infidelity.

To call a man malakos—“soft”—was to liken him to this degraded view of women, reinforcing the notion that to be anything less than dominant, restrained, and rational was to be shamefully unmanly.

Malakoi & Bible Translators

How have Bible translation committees handled the translation of this word?

Before we explore the history of how malakoi has been translated, it’s worth noting that for most of history, translation committees were composed entirely of men. The first Bible translation committee in the world to include a woman as a full, active translator (not just in an editorial or administrative role) was the team behind the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)—in 1989.

It’s especially revealing to trace how English Bible translations have handled the word malakoi in 1 Corinthians 6:9 over the centuries.

While early renderings translated it as something like “weaklings”, the Geneva Bible (published over 1,000 years after) introduced the word “effeminate.” This reflected and reinforced a growing cultural belief that masculinity was a sign of godliness, and that “softness” in men—emotionally, physically, or socially—was morally suspect.

Then in 1946, the word “homosexual” was introduced into several English translations, marking a major theological shift.

Below is a list of how various Bibles have translated malakoi and which versions used each term (found at archive.org):

Translated as “soft”

405 Latin Vulgate

Translated as “weaklings”

1526 Tyndale Bible
1535 Coverdale Bible
1537 Matthew’s Bible
1539 Great Bible
1568 Bishops’ Bible

Translated as “undisciplined or unrestrained”

1557 Geneva Bible

Translated to “effeminate”

1582 Douay-Rheims Bible
1611 King James Version
1729 Daniel Mace New Testament
1730 Robert Witham New Testament
1764 Anthony Purver Bible
1862 Young’s Literal Translation
1901 American Standard Version
1960 J. B. Phillips New Testament
1995 New American Standard Bible

Translated to “homosexuals”

1946 Revised Standard Version NT (but they took it away for their next edition)
1966 Good News Translation
1969 The New Berkeley Version in Modern English
1971: The Living Bible
1982 New King James Version
1995 God’s Word Translation
1996 New Living Translation
2001 English Standard Version

Other Translations:

1903 Weymouth New Testament: guilty of unnatural crime
1970 New American Catholic Bible: Sodomites
1971 Revised Standard Version: Revised from Homosexual back to Sexual perverts
2002 The Message: Those who use and abuse sex
2011 New International Version: Men who have sex with men
2011 Common English Bible: Both participants in same-sex intercourse
2012 Lexham English Bible: Passive homosexual partners

The Year Malakoi Became Homosexual

If you notice in our list above, the word Malakoi was not translated to homosexual until 1946. Here is a quick summary of that event.

The Decision

A Bible translation committee for the Revised Standard Version (RSV) wanted to make the Bible more “readable”, so they decided to merge malakoi with another word Paul used separately (arsenokoitai) and use the term “homosexuals”, which in their context meant “boy molester”. TV commercials warned people about “homosexuals” (boy molesters) who were hiding around every corner.

The Change

After the printing of the 1946 RSV edition with the new word “homosexual”, they were made aware by a Bible scholar in Canada that the word did not mean what they wanted it to mean, so the committee voted to change it. They voted to change it (7–3). Because the Bible had already been printed, though, they had to wait for the next printing to change it.

The Wait

While they waited for the next printing, something happened that changed the world. The Living Bible, The New International Version and the Good News Translation borrowed the word “homosexual’ into their translations without questioning the translation, researching the original meaning of Malakoi or applying the cultural influence. These documented meeting notes are currently held at the Yale Sterling Memorial Library, available for anyone to see.

The Tragedy

In the midst of the AIDS crisis, public rhetoric became dangerously dehumanizing. Signs appeared calling for violence, and certain people were pushed out of churches, homes, and communities. The damage was, and still is, immense. And tragically at times, deadly.

The Harm

In 1989, the NRSV Bible finally was able to change the word back from “homosexual” to their revised wording of “male prostitutes, sodomites”. In 2022, they changed it to “male prostitutes”. The error was not made out of bad intent, but the harm had been done, influencing a whole culture in the United States that spread around the world. Even German Bibles had changed their terminology to “homosexual” after 1946, during this waiting time. For more information about this story, see the 1946themovie.

The Bible & Masculinity

Paul used a word that ancient Greeks were using to insult men that acted like women. Today, we would call that feminine.

Was Paul reinforcing those cultural norms? Was he calling out the actual morally weak character those men had, or was he calling them to be more dominant? Was he calling men to be less feminine and more Greek masculine?

If we look at Paul’s writings, he consistently emphasized virtues that went against the Greek standards for men, like gentleness, humility, integrity, patience, and self-control. Not power, dominance, or control.

There are men in the Bible that would have broken masculine norms in Greece.

David danced “with abandon” before the Lord (2 Sam. 6:14). Greeks would have mocked the dancing and “lack of self control”. He would wear soft linen robes (the bible says it was seen as inappropriate or “undignified” by his wife Michal). He played the harp, wrote emotional poetry, expressed deep affection for Jonathan (2 Sam. 1:26). He wept openly, showed deep vulnerability, and repeatedly expressed a sensitive heart.

Joseph (Jacob’s son) wore a multicolored robe (Gen. 37:3), a garment often associated with nobility or even femininity. He was deeply emotional (wept multiple times in Genesis 43–45).

Jeremiah was known as the “weeping prophet.” He cried publicly, expressed grief and inner turmoil.

Jesus wept in public, embraced children, knelt to wash feet, and described himself as a mother hen gathering her young (Luke 13:34), Jesus taught that the fruit of the Spirit is kindness, patience, peace, faithfulness, and self-giving love. His teaching went against the dominating manly values of the Greeks. He honored the meek, the poor, and the merciful (Matthew 5:3–10) rather than the dominant and powerful. He upheld love, gentleness, patience, and humility, not dominance or stoic detachment. Where the Stoics saw vulnerability as weakness, Jesus embraced it. Where the Greco-Roman man gained honor by ruling others; the Christian man gains honor by serving others (Philippians 2:5–8).

Many of the Bible’s most honored men were gentle, artistic, emotional, nurturing, or vulnerable. Traits we often code as “feminine” were not shamed by God—they were often the very things that marked someone as faithful, chosen, or deeply in tune with the Spirit.

Whatever malakoi meant, it wasn’t a rejection of men who are soft-hearted.
It was a call to live with integrity—not to conform to cultural masculinity.

The biblical model of Christlike virtue is about being soft-hearted, humble, loving, and willing to lay down power. So when Paul uses a word like malakoi, a Greek insult for a man who isn’t “manly enough”, we must be careful not to read that through the wrong cultural lens. Paul wasn’t affirming Stoic masculinity. He was calling believers to a new kind of strength, one shaped by the cross, not by empire.

The World & Masculinity

What counts as “masculine” varies widely across cultures, reminding us that masculinity is not a fixed moral standard. It’s a social expectation shaped by time and place.

In parts of Europe, men comfortably cross their legs, wear slim-cut clothing, and kiss on the cheek in greeting, none of which are considered unmanly there.

In South Korea, it’s common for male friends to walk arm-in-arm or rest a hand on each other’s legs, gestures seen as signs of friendship, not weakness.

In parts of the Middle East, men hold hands as they talk or walk together.

In many African cultures, men wear flowing robes and vibrant fabrics without any loss of status.

Even in the U.S., what’s considered masculine has shifted over time, from powdered wigs and high heels in the 18th century to flannel shirts and beards today.

These cultural differences show us that masculinity is not synonymous with virtue. God doesn’t call men to uphold cultural stereotypes. He calls all of us to reflect the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.

And none of those are gendered.

A Call To The Roots

For centuries, the word malakoi has been misunderstood. But when we return to the historical and linguistic roots, a different picture emerges.

Paul wasn’t condemning men for being soft-spoken, artistic, or emotional. He was calling out lives marked by selfishness, indulgence, and a lack of integrity.

Paul wasn’t referring to same sex loving relationships. He was calling out for humility, faithfulness, self-discipline, honesty, and compassion.

Paul wasn’t preaching dominance. He preached gentleness, love, and self-control as the marks of true strength.

We must stop using mistranslations as weapons, and start letting the Bible speak on its own terms. Let’s allow God’s Word and His love, not fear, to shape what we believe.

Because when we return to the roots, we don’t lose truth.

We find life.

References

William Loader – Sexuality in the New Testament (2010)
Scriptural usage in LXX and NT (Strong’s, BDAG).
Greek cultural meaning (BDAG, Dover, Thayer, classical authors).
Paul’s usage and scholarly interpretation (Scroggs, Loader, NET commentary).
Gendered insult and feminine devaluation (Philo, Aristotle, BDAG).
Dover, K.J. – Greek Homosexuality (1978)
Robin Scroggs – The New Testament and Homosexuality (1983)
BDAG Lexicon – (Bauer-Danker-Arndt-Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon)
Dio Chrysostom, Orations
Philo of Alexandria – Special Laws 3.37–42
Craig Williams – Roman Homosexuality (2nd edition, 2010)

Next Page: Romans