A viral debate clip claimed the Bible doesn’t actually condemn homosexuality, based on the meaning of two Greek words. Apologist Wes Huff says that claim falls apart the moment you look at those words in context.
The clip in question comes from the Jubilee debate series “Surrounded”, where conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey faced off against a man who argued that two Greek words in 1 Corinthians don’t mean what most Christians think they mean. If Paul really meant to condemn homosexuality, the man argued, he had other Greek words available and chose not to use them. “Why didn’t he use them?” he asked Stuckey on camera.
Huff, a Christian apologist and Bible scholar known for his manuscript research and viral podcast appearances, broke down the exchange on his YouTube channel. His answer works whether you’ve watched the clip or you’re just tired of this argument showing up in your group chat.
RELATED: Apologist Wes Huff Discusses Common Mistakes Christians Make When Arguing for the Faith
The claim: exploitation, not orientation
The man in the debate offered a specific reading of two words from 1 Corinthians 6:9. He argued that “arsenokoitai” referred to men who economically exploited other men, not consensual same-sex relationships. He claimed “malakoi” referred to men who castrated themselves in devotion to the goddess Athena. Under that reading, Paul’s list of ungodly behavior never touches modern, consensual same-sex relationships at all.
Huff called that interpretation “ridiculous,” and not because he dismisses the question. He said Christians who aren’t trained in Hebrew or Greek often fall into a “game of one-upmanship” where a word’s origin gets used as a rhetorical trump card. His goal, he said, was to give ordinary Christians a real answer instead of a talking point.
What Stuckey did right
Before getting into the Greek, Huff praised how Stuckey handled the debate itself. He said she “clearly did her homework” and, more importantly, refused to get pulled into a linguistics argument she wasn’t equipped to referee. Instead of debating word origins, she asked a more basic question: which relationship does Scripture describe as holy and capable of bearing fruit? She also pointed to basic human biology, noting that people are born with complete digestive and circulatory systems but only half a reproductive one, as evidence that male-female pairing isn’t arbitrary.
Huff said that instinct, knowing your strengths and staying on ground you can defend, is often better strategy than winning an argument about etymology you’re not prepared to have.
RELATED: Allie Beth Stuckey Raises Concerns About Hyper-Sexualized ‘Wuthering Heights’ Movie
Breaking down ‘arsenokoitai’
Huff then did what Stuckey didn’t need to. He explained that “arsenokoitai” is a compound word built from “arsen,” meaning male, and “koite,” meaning to lie down in bed. That second root is where the English word “coitus” comes from, and Huff said it carries a clear sexual meaning rather than a general one. It’s not describing someone lying down. It’s describing someone having sex.
The compound isn’t random. Huff pointed to the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, and specifically to Leviticus 18:22. Paul, he argued, is almost certainly coining “arsenokoitai” by fusing those two Greek words directly from that verse. A first-century Corinthian audience steeped in the Torah would have recognized the reference instantly. Paul wasn’t being vague. He was being precise for the exact people he was writing to.
Huff also addressed why Paul didn’t reach for other Greek vocabulary already available for male same-sex relationships. His answer: Paul was a Jew writing to an audience that knew its Scripture, and building a term straight out of Leviticus was the clearest, most efficient way to make his point land.
Breaking down ‘malakoi’
The second word, “malakoi,” translates to “soft men” and shows up elsewhere in Greco-Roman literature, including ancient medical texts. Huff said it describes adult men who took on an effeminate presentation specifically to attract male partners, something he compared to what we’d now call a sexual orientation rather than a physical condition.
Used together in the same sentence, Huff argued, “arsenokoitai” and “malakoi” describe the two sides of a single sexual act: the active and the passive partner. He was direct that this reading has nothing to do with exploitation or coercion. “There’s no hint in the terminology or the context that this is exploitative or between anything other than two consenting adults,” he said.
Why this argument keeps resurfacing
Debates over biblical language tend to come back around because the underlying question isn’t really about Greek roots. It’s about whether the Bible’s teaching on sexuality can be reinterpreted to fit modern assumptions. Huff pushed back on that framing directly, saying many reinterpretation efforts get presented as loving or compassionate while actually starting from a conclusion and working backward to the text.
He tied this back to Paul’s own definition of love, which rejoices in truth rather than excusing sin. For Huff, that’s the real stakes of the conversation. Getting the Greek right matters, but it matters because it protects people from teaching that feels affirming in the moment and harmful in the long run.