The Film 1946: Hollywood Gets the Bible’s Teaching on Same-Sex Acts Wrong

Written by Dr. Jeffrey A. D. Weima, Professor of New Testament, Calvin Theological Seminary

Proverbs 26:4-5 offers the following wisdom:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,

     or you yourself will be just like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly,

      or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

On the one hand, the logic in the central argument of the documentary film, 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture, is so problematic and weak that it can be judged to be foolishness. A public review of this film, therefore, might violate the wise advice to “not answer a fool” and thereby run the danger of drawing more attention to a movie that many might otherwise ignore. 

On the other hand, many members of the Christian Reformed Church of North America (CRCNA) are watching this film. A dozen CRCNA congregations, mostly in Canada, scheduled a public viewing of the movie for their church members, and The Hesed Project, an advocacy group in our denomination for issues related to human sexuality, organized an online panel discussion of the movie with the film’s director, an affirming biblical scholar and others. A public review of the film 1946, therefore, follows the wise advice to “answer a fool” in order to avoid the danger that many will naively be deceived by the misleading claims found in this documentary movie.

The basic premise of the film is that in 1946 the translation team of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible wrongly rendered the Greek word arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 as “homosexuals”—the first time this word was ever used in the Bible—and that this mistranslation ignited an anti-gay movement within American conservative Christianity that still thrives today and has been expanded to oppose all LGBTQIA+ identities. This bold claim is told in true Hollywood fashion by portraying the central characters in a very sympathetic light and by reconstructing the central events in a conspiratorial tone similar to that of The Da Vinci Code. 

The three key figures include the film’s producer and director, Sharon “Rocky” Roggio, who is same-sex attracted, Kathy Baldock, an affirming straight activist, and Ed Oxford, a gay, former seminarian. All three were born into conservative Christian communities but experienced such hurtful responses from their family and local church that they felt compelled to reject the historic, orthodox understanding of human sexuality and embrace an affirming position on LBGTQIA+ issues. Despite the clear bias at work in the retelling of their stories, there is also a note of truth in them that cannot be simply dismissed. The church has too often failed to be a caring and compassionate community that welcomes and ministers to those who are struggling with issues of human sexuality. The CRCNA, heeding the exhortation of the Human Sexuality Report (HSR), has officially repented of its sin in this matter, but must continue to make progress in demonstrating the love and compassion of Christ to same-sex attracted persons.

The documentary records the investigative work of Baldock and Oxford as they research the 60,000 archived documents of the RSV translation committee now housed at Yale University. They discover not only a letter written to the committee in 1959 by a 21-year old seminary student who finds fault with their translation of the Greek arsenokoites in 1 Cor. 6:9 as “homosexuals” but also the response letter by the committee’s chairman who agrees with his criticism. The documentary manages to track down this seminary student who is still alive after serving thirty-seven years as a minister in the United Church of Canada. The film also interviews four affirming biblical scholars who confidently claim that the so-called “clobber texts” commonly used to reject same-sex activity (Gen. 19:1-29; Jud. 19:1-29; Lev. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) do not mean what the Christian faith has long understood them to mean. These texts deal instead with either abusive relationships or excessive sexual behavior and in no way condemn loving, mutual, same-sex acts.

It would be foolish to dismiss the persuasive potential of watching such a film. Hollywood is very skilled at appealing to our emotions and in spinning together a narrative that gets us to view events in a certain light, and the film 1946 does just that. It is not for nothing that this documentary has won several movie festival awards. But if one is able to look beyond the strong emotions that the film evokes and evaluate its logic and the truthfulness of its claims, then the judgment can only be that Hollywood gets the Bible’s teaching about same-sex acts wrong.

The movie’s claim that the 1946 edition of the RSV was the first time that the word “homosexual” was ever found in scripture is technically true in the sense that this English word had never been used in a Bible translation before. But it is not true that this is the first time that an English Bible translation ever condemned the act of men having sex with other men. Over 400 years earlier the Tyndale Bible (1526) referred in 1 Cor. 6:9 to “abusers of themselves with mankind” which was later adopted also by the KJV (1611)—an expression that clearly refers to gay sex but without doing so more explicitly due to the sensitivities about such sexual acts in that Elizabethan era. 

It is also true that the word “homosexual” is not the best way to translate the key Greek term in 1 Cor. 6:9. This is because it is a modern word that refers to a class of people—who people are, whereas the ancient Greek word refers to conduct—what people do. Christians today therefore always need to be careful to distinguish between same-sex attracted persons who ought to be treated with care and compassion, and same-sex acts which are prohibited by God. 

The more important point, however, is that it ultimately does not matter what the translation committee of the RSV did in 1946 or, for that matter, what any other translator either before or after 1946 has ever done in rendering the Greek word arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9. What matters is the meaning of this word intended by Paul, the inspired biblical author who was divinely led to use it. And on this crucial issue the evidence is clear and compelling: Paul is not, as the film 1946 confidently asserts, referring narrowly just to abusive forms of homosexual behavior like man-boy relationships (pederasty) but rather to any form of same-sex acts. Five important points support this claim. 

1. The Judaism of Paul’s Day

Paul was a Jew, and the Judaism of his day was unanimous in denouncing homosexual activity. All Jewish writings from the ancient world—those in the Bible as well as the many writings from that time period that were not included in the Bible—uniformly reject homosexual and lesbian behavior. Such widespread agreement in Judaism is, in fact, quite remarkable given the diversity of Jewish views on virtually any given topic. It is highly improbable that Paul would differ from that view, unless he explicitly states that he did. Yet the apostle neither in 1 Cor. 6:9 nor elsewhere even hints at an affirmation of same-sex acts.

2. There is a Word for That

If, as the film 1946 claims, Paul had in view only exploitative same-sex relationships like pederasty, the apostle could have easily made this clear by using any one of several Greek words that refer specifically to pederasty. For example, there is the word paiderastês, from which we get the English word “pederast.” Another good word choice to refer to this abusive relationship is the word-pair erastês (older man) and erõmenos (younger man). The fact that Paul did not use any of these terms, all of which were commonly known and used in the writings of his day, suggests that he was not thinking only of exploitative forms but of any type of same-sex activity. 

3. Interpreting Scripture with Scripture

The longer and clearer text of Rom. 1:24-27 clarifies the meaning of the brief and less clear text of 1 Cor. 6:9. Paul refers in Rom. 1:26 to women who have sexual relations with women, that is, lesbianism. Since pederasty in the ancient world only involved sexual relations between males (an older man and a younger man or teen) and never involved sexual relations between females (an older woman with a younger woman), it is highly unlikely that the apostle in 1 Cor. 6:9 has in view only the narrow and abusive form of same-sex sex involved in pederasty. This is confirmed by Paul’s reference in Rom. 1:27 to men who have sex with other men who “were consumed with passion for one another.” The phrase “for one another” indicates that the apostle is referring to consensual sex and that he finds fault with both persons involved in the same-sex act (note also the use of the plurals in the rest of the verse: “receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error”). This makes it impossible to believe, as the film 1946 claims, that Paul is referring narrowly in 1 Cor. 6:9 to the abusive aspect of pederasty in which an older man exploits sexually a younger man.

4. An Old Testament Allusion

Paul’s use of the word arsenokoitai involves an Old Testament allusion to Lev. 20:13 (likely also 18:22). In fact, there is widespread agreement among biblical scholars that Paul created this word on the basis of the Greek translation (Septuagint) of Lev. 20:13. The fact that Paul does not explain the meaning of this special word arsenokoitai and includes it in a vice list shows that he assumes his Corinthian readers would have no difficulty in understanding what he meant. The rhetorical force of such a list required that the vices listed were well known. 

This special word, arsenokoitai, is a compound term made up of two parts: arsên, which means “male,” and koitê, which literally means “bed” but euphemistically refers to sexual acts that take place on a bed. On the basis of these two parts, the standard academic Greek lexicon defines the singular form arsenokoitês as “a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex” (BDAG 135). Even the person who does not know Greek can easily see how the two parts of the compound word arsenokoitês comes from the Greek translation (Septuagint) of Lev. 20:13: 

kai hos an koimêthê meta arsenos koitên gynaikos

“And whoever will sleep with a male as with a woman”

Why is it significant that the special word Paul uses in 1 Cor. 6:9 to refer to homosexual activity comes from Lev. 20:13? Since this OT text deals with all types of same-sex acts, not just exploitative ones like pederasty (Lev. 20:13 explicitly states “both of them have done what is detestable”), Paul’s use of this word indicates that he is thinking of the Mosaic law in which any kind of sexual relationship between two males is forbidden. 

5. Paul’s Use of a Word-Pair

The apostle in 1 Cor. 6:9 does not only use the one term arsenokoitai in the vice list but pairs it with another key word malakos. There is widespread agreement among Greek grammarians and NT scholars that the first term, malakos, which literally means “soft” or “effeminate,” refers metaphorically to males who played the female role in sex and allowed themselves to be penetrated by other males, while the second term, arsenokoitai, refers to males who penetrate other males. This scholarly consensus is reflected in the NIV 2011 and ESV translations, which both have exactly the same explanatory note on this verse: “The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.” Paul, by pairing these two words, is referring not narrowly to pederasty or other abusive forms of homosexual acts but comprehensively to both the passive and active partner in any same-sex relationship. 

Even if it would be conceded that the film 1946’s claim about the mistranslation of 1 Cor. 6:9 were true, this would still not result in the church’s acceptance of same-sex acts. This is because there are other biblical passages that either condemn homosexual sex or rule it out. 

Romans 1:24-27

Paul’s words in Rom. 1:24-27 contain a strong denunciation of not only men having sex with men but also women having sex with women. The affirming biblical scholars in the film 1946 claim that the apostle here is not addressing all forms of homosexual activity but only a specific type of homosexual conduct characterized by excessive desire and a lack of self-control. Straight women were so filled with sexual desire, that is, lust, the argument runs, that they had sexual relations with other women. Similarly, straight men were so filled with lust that they had sexual relations with other men. There is nothing here, they claim, that prohibits loving, self-controlled, same-sex acts.

But the problem that Paul identifies in these verses involves not one of wrong degree (excessive behavior) but of wrong object. The preceding verses of 1:19-23 deal with the sin of idolatry and the apostle’s argument here does not involve degree (as if normal idolatry is acceptable but excessive idolatry is wrong) but object: people worship created things rather than the Creator. Similarly, the sin of lesbian and gay sex discussed in 1:24-27 does not involve degree (the idea that normal desire for same-sex sex is acceptable but excessive desire or lust is wrong) but object: women are having sex not with men but with women, and conversely men are having sex not with women but with men.

Furthermore, Paul’s key argument in these verses must not be missed: homosexual activity is wrong because it violates God’s created order for male-female relationships. Same-sex acts violate one’s created nature—God’s design for men and women established in creation. That Paul does, in fact, have the Genesis creation account in mind is obvious from his multiple allusions to it in Rom. 1:24-27: 

• 1:20 refers to the creation of the world (“For since the creation of the world ….”)

• 1:23 has the three-fold combination of “birds and animals and reptiles,” thereby echoing Gen. 1:30 (Septuagint)

• 1:25 refers to God not as a “God” or “Father” but as “the Creator”

• 1:26 and 1:27 refer to “women” and “men,” which in the Greek text are more precisely identified as “females” (thêleiai) and “males” (arsenes), thereby alluding to Gen. 1:27 where we read “male and female he created them” 

Paul’s argument in Rom. 1:24-27, therefore, is clear: sexual acts between a female and another female or between a male and another male are “unnatural” and wrong because such conduct goes against one’s created nature. It is contrary to the way in which God made each gender physically so that male and female fit the other in a “natural” way.

The Teaching of Jesus

The film 1946 does not address the teaching of Jesus, perhaps due to the often-made claim that Jesus never said anything about homosexual sex because he did not consider such a topic an important matter. Jesus, of course, said virtually nothing about same-sex acts for the simple but important fact that the Judaism of his day was unanimous in denouncing homosexual activity and so there was no reason for him to address the topic. Nevertheless, two of Jesus’ statements are relevant and thus important.

In Mark 7:21-23 Jesus lists several things that defile a person, and at the head of the list is “sexual immorality” (NIV 2011). This particular translation is a bit misleading because the Greek term used here, porneiai, is rendered as singular, but in the original language it is plural: “sexual immoralities.” This reminds us that Jesus, as a rabbi who knew Old Testament law well, was referring to many different sexual sins forbidden in texts like Leviticus 18 and 20—texts that condemn all kinds of unlawful sexual relations, including same-sex acts (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).

In Matt. 19:4-5 Jesus answers a question from the Pharisees on divorce by citing both Gen. 1:27 and 2:24: “‘Haven’t you read,’ Jesus replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’” What is significant for our understanding of Jesus’ position on same-sex acts is the fact that he includes the quote from Gen. 1:27 (“made them male and female”), whereas only the quote from Gen. 2:24 was directly relevant to the Pharisees’ question about divorce. Jesus could have easily omitted the quote from Gen. 1:27 from his answer. The fact that he included it reveals that he considered sex difference (“made them male and female”) to be important and that Jesus did, in fact, expect marriage to be between a man and a woman.

It may well be that some reading this movie review will be tempted to dismiss the criticisms raised above as simply the stubborn and biased responses of one who is not genuinely open to alternative plausible interpretations of those biblical texts that address the subject of same-sex acts. The testimony of an affirming New Testament scholar may thus be relevant. William Loader is arguably the leading scholar in the world on the subject of sexuality in Judaism and Christianity, having written at least ten (!) academic books on the subject. After reviewing the various arguments used by revisionists to change the Bible’s teaching on homosexual acts so that such conduct is acceptable, Loader, who strongly advocates for the church’s need to accept gay practice and marriage, comments that he “can only stand and wonder at the extraordinary maneuvers which have been taken to re-read Paul as not condemning homosexual relations at all” (Sexuality and Gender. Collected Essays [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021] 349 [emphasis added]). The arguments presented in the documentary 1946 must similarly be judged to involve “extraordinary maneuvers” in order to disregard the clear teaching of the Bible.  

The film 1946 highlights the “needle-in-the-haystack” discovery among the massive archives of the RSV translation committee–the letter of the 21-year-old seminary student from Canada who issues a warning to members of that team: “Misinformed and misguided people may use this RSV translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a sacred weapon.” As a 63-year-old seminary professor who originally comes from Canada, I feel the need to use this movie review to issue a similar warning to members of the Christian Reformed Church: Misinformed and misguided people may use the film 1946 as a Hollywood weapon to cast doubt on the clear and consistent teaching of scripture that same-sex acts are contrary to the will of God.  

---

Dr. Jeffrey Weima is Professor of New Testament at Calvin Theological Seminary, where he has taught for 32 years. He is a sought-after speaker who is able to communicate well the truths of the Bible in an interesting, contemporary and practical manner. Jeff has published six books thus far: Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (Sheffield 1994); An Annotated Bibliography of 1 and 2 Thessalonians (Brill 1998); two commentaries on 1 & 2 Thessalonians--one brief (Zondervan 2002) and the other extensive (710 pages; Baker 2014); and Paul the Ancient Letter Writer: An Introduction to Epistolary Analysis (Baker 2016). His sixth and latest book is entitled The Sermons to the Seven Churches of Revelation: A Commentary & Guide (Baker 2021). Jeff is also the author of numerous scholarly articles, academic essays and book reviews. He is an active member of several academic societies, lectures in countries all over the world, leads biblical study tours to Greece, Turkey, Israel/Jordan, and Italy, conducts intensive preaching seminars for pastors, and preaches/speaks widely in churches in both the USA and Canada.

Jeff and his wife, Bernice, have been married for 40 years. They have four children and eleven very cute grandkids. 

---

Dr. Weima will be giving a public lecture at the 2024 Abide Project Convention: