The Complete and honest Bible position on Homosexuality

 

Matters related to homosexuality and LGBT issues fuel many debates. The debates are often heated because they involve foundational issues that intersect with morality, politics, and law, and are both personal and public, involving foundational issues about the meaning of sex and marriage, rights and freedoms, the interpretation and application of Scripture, and an understanding of gender and identity, among other things. Underlying these and other aspects of the debate are very different worldviews and different understandings of human beings.

In terms of Christian ethics, much of the recent debate has centered on an interpretation of Scripture and its implications for human sexuality and sexual behavior. Some, in light of changes in how homosexuality is understood, along with cultural pressure for LGBT equality (including equal recognition of same-sex relationships), have reconsidered what the Bible has to say about homosexuality, marriage, and other issues. 

In particular, they have reinterpreted the key texts concerning homosexuality, arguing that they do not deal with or apply to a current understanding of sexual orientation or to consensual, committed same-sex relationships. 

They further argue that love and justice require the full inclusion of homosexuals for church membership and consideration of ordination. Others consider the Bible to be clear in its condemnation of homosexual acts and have rejected a “revisionist” interpretation of the Bible regarding homosexuality. Further, they have argued that faithfulness to God, as well as love and justice, demand that they do not affirm what the Bible condemns and that those who are engaged in homosexual practices without repentance cannot be accepted into church membership, much less presented for ordination and leadership in the church.

Clearly, much is at stake here, for it involves the very understanding of the gospel and entrance into the kingdom of heaven (not “merely” church membership). Unfortunately, those who have stood with Christian tradition on this matter, seeking to defend the truth of Scripture, have sometimes only been heard to condemn and marginalize homosexuals. Evangelicals are often portrayed as homophobic and hateful. 

This should not be the case. In response, some have sought to soften the message, to be clear that the church welcomes those with same-sex orientation, but does not affirm homosexual acts. However, for those seeking full recognition of same-sex relationships, a welcome without affirmation is insufficient. As such, it is not surprising that there is not a lot of room for compromise; or, as one revisionist scholar put it, the middle ground is disappearing.

As we examine the issue of homosexuality, we do well to remember that it is not an abstract issue. Behind the debate and the headlines, those who experience same-sex attraction are real people with faces and names, hopes, and fears. They are our neighbors and friends, customers, employees, and employers. An important recent development with respect to LGBT issues is that many Christians have come to know something of the struggles and pain experienced by those who identify as LGBT, and some churches are learning how to understand, reach out, and minister to them without compromising the gospel or the truth of Scripture. 

In short, many Christians who love Jesus and stand uncompromisingly on the truth of the Bible are realizing that homosexuality represents not merely a moral issue, but a people to be loved.

How should we understand the biblical teaching on homosexuality? 

• How should we respond to our LGBT neighbors and friends? 
• What counsel should we give those who identify as gay Christians? 
• Is it possible to hold to what was once the consensus of the church concerning the biblical prohibition of all homosexual acts, and yet love and reach out to those who identify as LGBT? 

We will survey the biblical material that relates directly to homosexuality, as well as the biblical framework within which those texts appear, and we will consider some of the key challenges put to the traditional interpretation of those texts. 

In addition, we will consider some of the frequently discussed and hotly debated issues pertaining to homosexuality, such as sexual orientation and gender identity, what causes homosexuality, whether it is possible to change sexual orientation, and questions of pastoral ministry. First, we will briefly consider the context of the recent debate about homosexuality and LGBT issues.

Context

In one sense, the debate about homosexuality is like other moral debates we are discussing, and it should not be given disproportionate weight. Yet, in another sense, this issue is different. 

With some hotly debated issues (capital punishment and war, for instance), there is some movement in public opinion from time to time, but the debate is somewhat static. With other issues (such as physician-assisted suicide), there seems to be a significant moral shift taking place. But with homosexuality and LGBT issues, while there are ongoing and intractable debates, the moral shift can be described as part of a cultural and sexual revolution.

Seismic Changes

One clear signpost of the sexual, moral, and cultural revolution is the redefinition of marriage, culminating in the US Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision on June 26, 2015. In a five-four decision, the court ruled that same-sex couples are guaranteed a fundamental right to marry by the United States Constitution. A decision made by an unelected person, expressing a personal opinion on a gay couple having some legal issues. But that's America. 

On the one hand, the decision seemed to be an example of judicial overreach, receiving harsh words from critics. On the other hand, the court reflected the massive shift in public opinion that had already taken place, in which a majority of Americans had come to affirm what only a decade earlier a vast majority had rejected. This was not the beginning or end of the revolution, but it was a significant signpost along the way.

Another example of rapid change can be seen in the position of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Prior to 1973, the APA listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. Under pressure from activists who threatened to disrupt APA meetings, in 1973 homosexuality was categorized as a “sexual orientation disturbance.”  

APA voted on homosexuality. Since when does anybody vote on science? They were manipulated.

By 2015, the APA considered it to be “a normal expression of human sexuality,” and applauded the Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage. What is notable is that the changes in the APA’s position were not the result of scientific breakthrough, but rather social pressure. The success in getting the APA to change its position on homosexuality, which had obvious implications for therapy and other practices, was a precursor of the dramatic changes that would take place in American culture more generally in the following decades.

Revising the Bible and Morality: Scholarship and the Church

The cultural revolution has had a significant impact on some more liberal-leaning biblical scholarship and the church. Liberal scholars began to challenge the long-standing consensus that all homosexual practices are condemned as sinful in Scripture, arguing that biblical writers never address committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. They were re-interpreting the Bible by social pressure. 

Intense pressure has been put on denominations and churches, from within and without, to affirm same-sex relationships. Matthew Vines has gone so far as to assert that “it isn’t gay Christians who are sinning against God by entering into monogamous, loving relationships. It is the church that is sinning against them by rejecting their intimate relationships.”  But Matthew misunderstands and twists scripture freely to match his position.

In some cases, the pressure is barely veiled coercion. After noting how waves of acceptance and affirmation of homosexuality have occurred in virtually every sector of society (education, medicine, corporate America, media and entertainment, the sports world, even the Boy Scouts), David Gushee issued what could be considered an ominous call to religious conservatives “to reconsider their position voluntarily.” Some mainstream denominations and many churches, including some evangelical churches, have indeed reconsidered and revised their views, affirming same-sex relations. They are now apostate churches.

Many evangelicals and other conservatives have been overwhelmed and perhaps shell-shocked by the dramatic and rapid changes that have taken place. They fear that more churches will capitulate to the sexual revolution, that marriage and the family will be further threatened, and that the authority of Scripture will continue to be undermined. 

Yet, in the midst of such challenges, there is an opportunity to examine Scripture carefully and to proclaim biblical truth with clarity and boldness, which does not end with a message of judgment and God’s wrath against human sin and rebellion. It offers the life-giving message of grace and loves lavishly poured out on undeserving sinners who repent and place their trust in Jesus, the perfect Son of God, who took on himself our sin in order to restore our broken relationship with God and to redeem our broken lives for his glory.

The Bible and Homosexuality

For Christians, the Bible is the decisive authority for faith and practice. In the past, that has been an adequate reason to hold the view that God condemns homosexual acts, for the teaching of Scripture has long been understood to be clear and consistent on the matter. 

For the most part, those who affirmed homosexual practices rejected the Bible. More recently, however, some have made the case, as Vines states it, that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.” But he doesn't know what he is talking about. Dr. Al Mohler's book clearly points out Vine's serious theological errors.

Thus, in the following pages, we will examine what the Bible teaches about homosexuality. In so doing, we will consider some of the key revisionist arguments and respond to them. Much of the focus will be on the contested texts that address homosexuality directly in some form. These are treated in four groupings: Genesis 19:1–11 (cf. Judg. 19); Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13; Romans 1:24–27 (or more broadly, verses 18–32); 1 Corinthians 6:9–11; and 1 Timothy 1:8–11.

Some will argue that the Bible is not much concerned with homosexuality, since it is rarely addressed, or at least that it is far more concerned about other things. As one author put it, the few prescriptive texts “are slim pickings among the Bible’s 31,103 verses.” 

Even people who don’t know exactly how many verses are in the Bible can recognize that this is an inadequate hermeneutical principle. As we will see, when the Bible does address homosexuality, it is clear and consistent, and never affirming of homosexual acts. But the relevance of biblical teaching isn’t limited to the texts that directly address homosexuality, and we will begin at the beginning, where God’s design and purposes for sex are revealed.

The Creation Pattern of Male and Female in Genesis 1–2

We examined certain aspects of the creation accounts as they relate to human sexuality and marriage. Here we will look at key features with specific attention to their relevance for homosexuality. In particular, we need to consider the significance of the creation of human beings as male and female, and the tasks given to them (Gen. 1:26–28); the creation of the woman as a “helper corresponding to” the man (Gen. 2:18); and the union of the man and the woman as “one flesh” in marriage (Gen. 2:23–24). These accounts resound with God’s planning and intention, with order and purposefulness. Nothing is arbitrary, accidental, or incidental. They are obviously foundational for our understanding of God’s purposes in creation, especially with respect to the nature and role of human beings.

He created them male and female

In Genesis 1:26–28, God creates human beings in his own image, he creates them male and female, and he gives his human creatures five imperatives: to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, subdue the earth, and rule over the creatures of the earth. Genesis 2 will focus more closely on the relationship between the man and the woman. In Genesis 1 we see the bigger picture, that they are together given the task of filling the earth and ruling over it. The two accounts serve complementary purposes and must be read in relation to one another or we can easily distort the meaning of both.

Revisionist commentators downplay the normative significance of the creation narratives, or at least of the significance of male and female within the creation narratives. For Vines, for instance, same-sex orientation is not a “distortion caused by the fall” but rather a “created characteristic” that is “a good part of God’s creation.” In addition, Vines argues, none of the purposes of God in creating image-bearers—such as the value of each individual, the capacity for relationships and covenantal love, and having dominion over the earth—require heterosexuality.

Below we’ll look more closely at Genesis 2 and marriage. Here some general comments are worth noting. To begin with, God’s design of human beings as male and female, in relation to one another, and his purposes for them feature prominently in these accounts and are not accidental or incidental. 

First, the creation of human beings as male and female is closely related to the imperatives given to them, not only to multiply and fill the earth but also to subdue and have dominion. Second, every human being is an image-bearer, and it is not necessary to be in a one-flesh union of male and female in order to bear the divine image. Yet the roles are given to God’s image-bearers are closely connected to their creation as male and female, so we ought not to treat that reality as incidental. 

Together, males and females multiply and fill the earth, and together male and female exercise dominion. All humans bear God’s image. Yet the roles are given to God’s image-bearers flow out of the relationship between man and woman. Third, the revisionist claim that same-sex attraction is part of God’s creative purposes, providing a good variety of sexuality, is not indicated in the biblical creation account or anywhere else in Scripture. The revisionist arguments to this end are based on subjective experience and arguments from silence and are contrary to the unified witness of the Bible where it does speak about homosexuality, including (in Romans 1) where it speaks of it as being contrary to the creation purposes of God.

A helper fit for him

Genesis 2:18 reads, “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’ ” (ESV). In the chapter on marriage and sexuality, we have seen that God provides the woman for the man as a helper to accomplish the tasks that God has given them. Here the focus is shifted slightly to the question of the kind of helper that God provides. The text says that God provides a helper that is “fit for him” (ESV) or “suitable for him” (NIV). What does “fit” or “suitable” mean? 

Vines and James Brownson and others suggest that the woman is fit or suitable not because she is a woman but because she is human. Of course, God did first bring all the animals before the man, and he recognized that they were not the help he needed, preparing him to recognize the helper that is suitable. In contrast to the animals, he recognizes that he needs a human. The focus, revisionists say, is on similarity rather than difference or complementarity of male and female. Vines concedes that for the first man, a woman was indeed necessary for procreative purposes, but that is not as important now. Thus any human could provide the help needed, including companionship and sexual fulfillment.

However, this view is inadequate. First, the emphasis here is not primarily on companionship (though that is not absent), but on providing help to fulfill the purposes for which God has created the man. This is evident in the need for help to tend to the garden (Gen. 2:5, 8, 15). Beyond that, if Genesis 1–2 is read together, the help includes the imperatives given to the male and female in Genesis 1:28. 

The absence of any reference to procreation in Genesis 2 leads some (not just revisionist commentators) to suggest that in this account at least, the emphasis is on companionship and not procreation, minimizing the significance of procreation for marriage. Yet procreation is a central feature of the help provided, and it cannot be excluded from the purposes for which the woman is given as a help.

Second, the term “suitable” itself at least suggests complementarity (so the HCSB: “I will make a helper as his complement”), contrary to Brownson’s claim. In verse 18 God determines to create for the man a helper (עֵזֶר) who is suitable (כְּנֶגְדּוֹ). Both terms are important, but the focus here is on the meaning of כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.22 Is the woman suitable for the man because she is human, or is the fact that she is a woman significant? כְּנֶגְדּוֹ is a compound word from כְּ (“as” or “like”) and נֶגֶד (“opposite” or “against” or “in front of”). If the focus was on similarity, as Brownson claims, it seems that כְּ would have been sufficient. So the compound word indicates something else. Preston Sprinkle asserts that “this word potentially conveys both similarity (ke) and dissimilarity (neged). Eve is a human and not an animal, which is why she is ke (‘like’) Adam. But she’s also a female and not a male, which is why she is different from Adam, or neged (‘opposite him’).”23 Compound words are not always easy to translate, and כְּנֶגְדּוֹ only appears in Genesis 2:18 and 2:20, so we must be careful not to make too much of this one term. Yet it is suggestive, fitting very well with the complementarity that we find with male and female, in a general and not merely biological sense.

Marriage is a one-flesh union

When God brings the woman to the man as his suitable helper, he exclaims,

This one, at last, is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh; this one will be called “woman,” for she was taken from man. (Gen. 2:23)

And then we read, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh” (v. 24). “One flesh” is related to the “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” But what does that mean?

Though it includes sexual union, “one flesh” is broader, signifying that marriage forms a bond as strong as kinship. Indeed, the Hebrew idiom “flesh and bone” is like the English “flesh and blood.” In Genesis 29:14, Laban says to his nephew Jacob, “You are my bone and my flesh” (ESV; CSB says, “you are my own flesh and blood”). 

The use of “flesh” or “flesh and bone” or “flesh and blood” for kinship is common (see, e.g., Gen. 37:27; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:12–13; 1 Chron. 11:1). So, for instance, in his comments on Genesis 2:24, Gordon Wenham says that one flesh “does not denote merely the sexual union that follows marriage.… Rather it affirms that just as blood relations are one’s flesh and bone, so marriage creates a similar kinship relationship between man and wife.” Sexual union is included, but it also signifies the close bond and permanence of the marriage union.

Does Genesis 2:24 leave open the possibility that this could also apply to a same-sex union? In his study on the significance of one flesh in the context of gender and sexuality, Brownson draws this conclusion: 

“It is clear that Scripture assumes that this one-flesh bond only takes place between a man and a woman. Yet there is nothing inherent in the biblical usage that would necessarily exclude committed gay or lesbian unions from consideration as one-flesh unions when the essential characteristics of one-flesh unions as kinship bonds are held clearly in view.”

This is a giant leap, for several reasons. 

• First, the creation accounts in Genesis establish normative patterns. For example, the narrative in Genesis 2:24 turns from the description of this man and this woman to a description of marriage itself, explaining, “This is why a man leaves his father and mother and bonds with his wife, and they become one flesh.” 
• Second, the normative significance of the one-flesh union as a marital sexual union of a man and a woman seems to be central to Paul’s point to the Corinthians when he appeals to Genesis 2:24 to rebuke them for visiting prostitutes. He asks, “Don’t you know that anyone joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For Scripture says, the two will become one flesh” (1 Cor. 6:16). The sexual union is central to the notion of becoming one flesh. There is no evidence that this would apply to other sexual encounters, like a married man kissing another woman, or a same-sex relationship. Those acts are prohibited, but not on the basis of forming a one-flesh union.
• Third, if (as Brownson acknowledges) Scripture assumes that the one-flesh bond only takes place between a man and a woman, there must be significant evidence to support the assertion that it could also apply to committed gay or lesbian unions. The emphasis on “one flesh” as kinship simply doesn’t support the case. 
• In Genesis 2 it is clear that it is establishing the significance of the union of a man and a woman, with its sexual union and lifelong bonding, where the one-flesh union of the man and woman generates the one flesh of a child. While the emphasis on kinship is important, it is specifically stated in the context of the sexual union of a man and woman, and not just any type of union. There is a sexual and familial unity in view. A man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two become one flesh. The kinship between father, mother, and child is replaced by a new kinship between husband and wife. The child of their one-flesh relationship completes the pattern. A same-sex relationship simply cannot encompass the essential characteristics packed into the understanding of one flesh as sexual union and kinship. It assumes and requires the union of a man and a woman.

Other Biblical Texts Dealing with Homosexuality

Genesis 19

The story of Sodom in Genesis has become so closely associated with the condemnation of homosexuality that the term sodomy commonly refers to male homosexual acts. This is often understood to be the root sin of Sodom, for which it is destroyed by God. 

Thus Robert Gagnon comments, “Traditionally, Gen 19:4–11 has been regarded as the classic Bible story about homosexuality.” By contrast, revisionist interpreters have argued that the sin of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality, at least not committed, monogamous same-sex relationships.

Revisionist interpreters are not alone in challenging the view that homosexuality is the reason for Sodom’s destruction. Sprinkle, a non-affirming New Testament scholar, says, “I don’t think the story of Sodom contributes to the discussion about homosexuality.” Richard Hays asserts that the story of Sodom “is actually irrelevant to the topic.” 

Gagnon, who provides perhaps the most sustained challenge to the revisionist arguments, is measured. He argues that the story of Sodom “does not deal directly with consensual homosexual relationships,” and thus is not an “ideal” guide for Christian ethics. Nevertheless, he challenges the view that “the story has little or nothing to do with homosexual practice.” What, then, is the reason for which Sodom (and Gomorrah) is destroyed?

As Genesis 19 opens, two angels have come to Sodom to investigate the outcry against the city (Gen. 18:20). Lot finds them in the town square and invites them to his house to spend the night. 

They first decline his offer, but after Lot’s urging, they accept his invitation. Lot provides dinner for his visitors, and all seems well, but the reader is soon alerted to the fact that something is terribly wrong. “Before they went to bed, the men of the city of Sodom, both young and old, the whole population, surrounded the house” (v. 4). They call out to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them” (v. 5 ESV). The dramatic intensity should be felt here, like when the music changes in a movie scene to indicate that something bad is going to happen. Why does everyone come? Why do they surround the house?

On the surface, the fact that the men of Sodom want to know who is staying with Lot doesn’t seem to have anything to do with homosexual acts. Why, then, do many English versions read something like “bring the men out so that we can have sex with them” (e.g., HCSB, NIV)? It turns on the meaning of the Hebrew term יָדַע, which means “to know,” and is used sometimes to mean sexual intercourse. 

However, Derrick Sherwin Bailey argues that in Genesis 19 we should take יָדַע to mean something like “get acquainted with,” since the word appears 943 times in the Old Testament, and it only refers to sex without qualification 10 times (if we don’t count Genesis 19 and its parallel in Judges 19:22), plus an additional five occurrences when used with שָׁכַב, “lying.”33 Therefore, he asserts, we ought to accept the most common usage, and conclude that the men of Sodom simply wanted to know who Lot’s visitors were.

Bailey’s point is not convincing. The meaning of a word is determined by its usage in a given context, not merely by statistics. Admittedly, the meaning of יָדַע in verse 5 is ambiguous. Indeed, one might even assume, reading the text to this point, that the men do simply want to know whom Lot is hosting. Translating יָדַע as “know,” as the ESV does, retains the ambiguity. However, meaning quickly becomes clear. Lot immediately steps out of the house, shuts the door behind him, and pleads, “Don’t do this evil, my brothers” (v. 7). 

What would be evil about their desire to “get acquainted with” the visitors? Lot understands their intention, saying, “I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (v. 8 ESV, emphasis added). The horrible nature of Lot’s offer notwithstanding, the same word for “know” is used here, clearly with reference to sex (which the CSB, NIV, and others make clear). The use of יָדַע for sex in verse 8 indicates that it means the same thing in verse 5.34 This is supported by the fact that יָדַע is used twelve times in Genesis, and in ten of those instances (including twice in Genesis 19), it refers to sexual intercourse.

As the text continues, the men threaten Lot himself, but the angels pulled Lot to safety. They tell Lot to leave and take his family with him because they are going to destroy Sodom—their investigation had found that it was indeed a wicked place—which they proceed to do. So, if the men of Sodom demanded that Lot send the angels (whom they thought were men) out so that they could have sex with them, is Sodom destroyed because of homosexuality? Not exactly, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t contribute to the discussion of homosexuality, or that it is irrelevant. What shall we conclude?

First, the story of Sodom doesn’t present consensual, committed same-sex relationships. The men of Sodom sought to rape Lot’s visitors. If the visitors had been female, or if Lot’s offer of his daughters had been taken, the act would still have been heinous. 

Sexual violence is evil, whether same-sex or opposite-sex. If this were the only text in Scripture on homosexual acts, it would be difficult to draw definite conclusions. We need to consider other texts carefully. We have seen that the creation accounts give us a paradigm, and we will examine texts that deal directly with homosexual acts below.

Second, Scripture itself elsewhere declares the sin of Sodom and, perhaps surprisingly, doesn’t focus on homosexual acts. For instance, Ezekiel says, “This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, plenty of food, and comfortable security, but didn’t support the poor and needy” (Ezek. 16:49). According to Ezekiel, the sin of Sodom is something like gross corruption and greed. 

Some revisionists, in addition to the focus on sexual violence, thus argue that Sodom’s sin is in hospitality. Lot sought to offer the visitors food, shelter, and safety under his roof, away from the town square, but the men of Sodom sought to violate them. They even turn on Lot, calling him a stranger (Gen. 19:9).

However, the homosexual acts threatened in Genesis 19 are likely not absent from Ezekiel’s account. He continues, “They were haughty and did detestable acts before me, so I removed them when I saw this” (v. 50). The term translated “detestable” (elsewhere “abominations”) is תּוֹעֵבַה, which is used elsewhere in Ezekiel to refer to “a wide array of vices, including sins of social injustice,” so it could refer specifically to Sodom’s failure to help the poor and needy. On the other hand, תּוֹעֵבַה is used in Leviticus to refer to homosexual acts, so that is certainly a possible allusion in Ezekiel, especially if there is a progression of sins (pride, abundance, selfishness and greed, and abominable acts). The particular sin of homosexual rape may not have needed mentioning, since the story was well known.

Jude also mentions Sodom (and Gomorrah), and attributes their destruction to sexual sin, saying that they “indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire” (Jude 7 ESV; cf. 2 Pet. 2:6–10, which also focuses on sexual sin). “Unnatural desire” is translated in the NASB as “strange flesh.” The phrase is σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, literally “different flesh.” Is it possible that Jude is referring to the men demanding sex with angels, who are indeed different flesh? Vines says, “Far from arguing that the men of Sodom pursued flesh too similar to their own,” as in same-sex relationships, “Jude indicts them for pursuing flesh that was too different.” 

Yet for their part, the men of Sodom thought the visitors were men, and their intention was homosexual rape. Why would Jude say “different flesh” rather than “same” or “similar” flesh? In God’s purposes, men were created to pursue sexual relations with women and women with men. To pursue same-sex relations is, ironically, to pursue different (or strange) flesh: “The term more naturally refers to a desire for those of the same sex; they desired flesh other than that of women.”

Therefore, it says too much to assert that “no biblical writers suggested that the sin of Sodom was primarily or even partly engaging in same-sex behavior.” If homosexual acts are not the primary reason for which Sodom is indicted, they are not far from view. Gross corruption and greed, and ultimately idolatry, maybe their root sin. 

Yet the fact that the men of Sodom would demand to have sex with other men is a feature of the text that demonstrates how far Sodom has fallen. Gagnon comments that social injustice may be a broad problem in Sodom. Yet, he says, “what makes this instance of inhospitality so dastardly, what makes the name ‘Sodom’ a byword for inhumanity to visiting outsiders in later Jewish and Christian circles, is the specific form in which the inhospitality manifests itself: homosexual rape.”

If the issue in Genesis 19 is homosexual rape, we might ask, “Does Genesis 19 condemn loving, consensual, monogamous gay sex?” Perhaps not, but that is a misleading question. If the text does not have such relations in view, then we can only say that it doesn’t condemn them because it doesn’t address them. Yet, if homosexual rape is highlighted because Scripture casts a negative judgment on all homosexual practice, then it surely has negative implications for consensual acts as well. Further, if all homosexual acts are condemned because they are against God’s will, then it is dubious to ask whether they can be loving. Nevertheless, we’ll have to look elsewhere in Scripture to draw conclusions about homosexual acts in general.

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

These two texts from Leviticus pronounce a clear judgment on sex between two males. They read as follows:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22 ESV)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Lev. 20:13 ESV)

These two verses seem to condemn all homosexual acts, at least between men. But revisionist interpreters suggest that these texts are not applicable for us, and they do not speak to consensual, committed homosexual relations. For instance, Vines casts doubts on the relevance of these commands, since Christians believe that many laws in Leviticus do not apply directly, such as restrictions on food and clothing. 

In addition, he ultimately ascribes the negative judgment on male homosexual acts to be grounded in a patriarchal perspective that we do not share. In this view, the penetrated man is treated like a woman, which is degrading. Accordingly, to embrace the commands in Leviticus is to embrace the misogyny on which they are based. Further, some scholars have argued that these texts likely refer to exploitative homosexual acts or temple prostitution.

In response, several points are relevant. First, it is dubious to attribute the prohibition of homosexual acts to a patriarchal, misogynistic perspective. This is at odds with the fundamental equality that is displayed in the Genesis creation accounts. Interpreters, ancient and modern, with a high view of Scripture would surely not accept such an internal contradiction between Leviticus and the paradigmatic account in Genesis. The text gives no indication that “women are inferior to men” or that the prohibition of homosexual sex is grounded in such a view.49 There are assumed gender distinctions, but the reason men are to act like men (and women to act like women) is “not because they are superior, but because they were created differently.”

Second, there is no indication that the prohibition has to do with temple prostitution. The command in Leviticus is straightforward, simply prohibiting men from having sex with men, with no indication that it involves prostitution.51

Third, those who seek to relativize the prohibition of homosexual acts in Leviticus often compare it to food and clothing laws. Such arguments are simplistic and misleading, and fail to note the much more relevant comparison with other laws on sexual morality, including the prohibition of adultery, incest, and bestiality. As Hays notes, the early church consistently adopts “the Old Testament’s teaching on matters of sexual morality, including homosexual acts.

Interpreting and applying Leviticus and its laws in the Christian life requires some hermeneutical nuance. Many revisionists, defending the goodness of homosexuality, simply do not offer an adequate reflection on why the Bible uniformly characterizes homosexual acts as sinful, beyond (as above) citing misogynistic motives or idolatrous practices.

Some may even be tempted to dismiss a law as morally irrelevant to us simply because it is part of Leviticus in general or the purity law in particular. However, as Sprinkle puts it, “We shouldn’t dismiss Leviticus 18 and 20 just because they are in, well, Leviticus.” Of course, it would also be a mistake to hold that we must obey every law in Leviticus simply because they are in the Bible, for there are some laws, such as sacrificial laws or food laws, that we are not bound to keep. What is needed is a biblical rationale that helps us to know which laws we should follow today and which laws we should not. Sprinkle offers some reasonable and helpful guidelines here.

  •      The commands about homosexuality are found in a section of Leviticus, chapters 18–20, that constitutes a literary unit, and in this section, most of the laws given are still relevant for Christians. They include prohibitions against incest (18:6–18; 20:11–14, 17, 19–21), adultery (18:20; 20:10), child sacrifice (18:21; 20:1–5), bestiality (18:23; 20:15–16), theft (19:11), lying (19:11), taking God’s name in vain (19:20), oppressing your neighbor (19:13), cursing the deaf (19:14), showing partiality in the court of law (19:15), slander (19:16), hating your brother (19:17), making your daughter a prostitute (19:29), and turning to witches or necromancers (19:31). Also in this section is the second great commandment, to love your neighbor as yourself (19:18)! Surely Christians are to obey these Levitical laws, even if it is not because we are bound by the Mosaic law.

  •      All or most of the laws that deal specifically with sex are still binding today (e.g., laws against incest, adultery, bestiality). Thus it is most natural to conclude that the prohibition of homosexual sex is still binding as well, for there is no rationale in the text that indicates otherwise. If one of the laws in Leviticus is not in force for people today, there should be a clear indication within Scripture as to why not. This brings us to the next point.

  •      The clearest way to judge whether a Levitical law is in force today is whether it is repeated or repealed in the New Testament. Some laws are repealed in the New Testament, like dietary restrictions (Mark 7:19; Acts 10:10–15) and sacrifices (e.g., Heb. 10:11–14). Many laws are repeated in the New Testament, like prohibitions of murder, adultery, stealing, bearing false witness, and the commands to honor father and mother and love your neighbor (e.g., Matt. 19:18–19). Others require a more nuanced response, like the ban on tattoos or keeping the Sabbath, because they may not clearly be repealed or repeated. The question concerns where homosexual acts fit in this classification. As we will see, the prohibition of homosexual acts is repeated in the New Testament.

To summarize, in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 sex between two males is prohibited without qualification. There is no suggestion that rape or temple prostitution is in view, no one forcing another to have sex, “and if two men do sleep with each other, they are both condemned.” That is, “the commands appear to include same-sex acts that are mutual and consensual; both partners are deemed guilty.” Indeed, “the commands in these two verses don’t come with any qualifications, comments, or specifications that could limit the commands to a particular type of same-sex behavior.”

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (cf. 1 Timothy 1:8–11)

We ill consider 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 next, because there is a connection with the passages in Leviticus. The text reads,

 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This is a critically important text for our discussion of homosexuality, for several reasons. First, it addresses Christians in Corinth and is part of the New Testament witness. Second, it affirms the condemnation of homosexual acts and validates the Levitical prohibition as a moral norm. Third, it does not isolate homosexuality or treat it in a category apart from other temptations or sins. And fourth, while it condemns all of the sins described, it also holds out the hope of the gospel for the repentant sinner.

The meaning of μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοίτης. The difficulty of interpreting this text in relation to homosexuality is understandable in some sense, but it is somewhat superficial. The challenge is understanding what is meant by the two terms that are associated with homosexual acts. Revisionist interpreters claim that it is impossible to know just what Paul means by these terms.58 The difficulty can be seen in the way the two relevant Greek terms, μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοίτης, are translated in various versions.

  •      NASB (above): “effeminate” (μαλακοί) and “homosexuals” (ἀρσενοκοίτης)

  •      ESV: “men who practice homosexuality” (taking the two together)

  •      CSB: “males who have sex with males”

  •      NIV: “men who have sex with men”

One of the reasons for the difficulty, and the various translations, is that the two terms are not common, and on the surface, there seems to be some ambiguity. For instance, μαλακοί has a range of possible meanings, including “effeminate” or “soft.” 

On its own, it would be difficult to tell just what Paul means by this. Vines studies various uses, and concludes that “if a man did anything that was typically associated with women, he opened himself to the charge of being a malakos.” One characteristic often attributed to women by ancient writers was a lack of self-control, so men who lacked self-control might be in view, according to Vines.

It is true that μαλακοί referred in general terms to men who acted like women, which could mean many things, and has led some commentators to argue either that its meaning is not clear, or it is misogynistic (condemning anything feminine), or at least that it does not refer to homosexuality.

Dale Martin, considering the translation “effeminate,” asks what we are to teach our congregations about its meaning. He notes, “In the ancient world a man could be condemned as effeminate for, among many other things, eating or drinking too much, enjoying gourmet cooking, wearing nice underwear or shoes, wearing much of anything on his head, having long hair, shaving, caring for his skin, wearing cologne or aftershave, dancing too much, laughing too much, or gesticulating too much.”

However, even if there is a range of possible meanings, Paul’s use appears to be accessible, and it appears that some revisionists are creating unwarranted confusion. Surely Paul is not considering men to be excluded from the kingdom of God for “enjoying gourmet cooking,” or “caring for his skin,” or “laughing too much,” to note several of the meanings cited by Martin. To include such possible meanings in the discussion of μαλακοί in the context in which it appears is to obfuscate. Hays notes that μαλακοί “appears often in Hellenistic Greek as pejorative slang to describe the ‘passive’ partners—often young boys—in homosexual activity.”

Philo, a first-century Jew, used the term in this sense. This would likely be closer to Paul, a first-century Jew, than many other instances. This is particularly the case when considering the context in which it appears. While the term has many possible uses, often it is associated with a man who played the passive role in sex with another man. As Sprinkle puts it, “Not every person accused of being a malakos necessarily engaged in sex with other men, but every man who played the passive role in homosexual sex could be called malakos.” It is reasonable, therefore, that many translations associate μαλακοί with homosexual relations. However, it isn’t absolutely certain, and some translations prefer to leave it somewhat ambiguous, as the NASB does with the use of “effeminate.” Those that make it explicit do so because of its association with the next term, ἀρσενοκοίτης.

As with μαλακοί, some interpreters argue that we cannot know what Paul means by ἀρσενοκοίτης. It is a compound word, from ἄρσεν (male) and κοίτη (“bed” or “lying”). While not entirely clear, at face value it is suggestive of male homosexual sex. There is no precise term in Greek (or Hebrew) for “homosexuals,” and this is the first extant use of ἀρσενοκοίτης in Greek, so perhaps Paul coined the term for homosexual sex. 

Of course, we must be cautious about compound words, for they are often not the sum of their parts. Revisionist interpreters thus challenge those who say that Paul simply coined a term for homosexuals. Martin, for instance, says, “It is highly precarious to try to ascertain the meaning of a word by taking it apart, getting the meaning of its component parts, and then assuming, with no supporting evidence, that the meaning of the longer word is a simple combination of its component parts.”

However, it is dubious for Martin to claim that there is no supporting evidence that ἀρσενοκοίτης refers to male homosexual acts. Actually, the evidence is very strong. Indeed, Robin Scroggs argues that it is a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase mishkav zakur, “lying with a male,” which is “most often used to describe male homosexuality.” 

This is derived directly from the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which can be seen clearly in the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was widely used in Paul’s day. There Leviticus 20:13 reads, “whoever lies with a man as with a woman [μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός], they have both done an abomination.” There is thus very strong evidence that ἀρσενοκοίτης is derived from ἄρσενος κοίτην in this text, and that it refers to males having sex with males.

In light of this, we may affirm that Paul’s use of ἀρσενοκοίτης in 1 Corinthians 6:9 unambiguously “presupposes and reaffirms the holiness code’s condemnation of homosexual acts.

Interestingly, this indicates that Paul deems the prohibition in Leviticus to be relevant for Christian reflection. Further, this meaning of ἀρσενοκοίτης suggests strongly that μαλακοί refers to sexual immorality (specifically the passive partner in homosexual acts), sandwiched as it is between adulterers and men who have sex with other men. As with Leviticus, so here, the condemnation of homosexuality is not limited to exploitation, prostitution, or promiscuity. Rather, homosexual acts as such are in view, and Paul issues a warning to both partners involved in such acts.

Though these two terms are somewhat strange at face value, the meaning of each and the two together point convincingly to homosexual acts. It may be noted that it appears, at least in some cases, that the debate isn’t really about the meaning of the words. For instance, in his conclusion to the discussion of these terms, Martin asserts that “all appeals to ‘what the Bible says’ are ideological and problematic,” and that “in the end, all appeals, whether to the Bible or anything else, must submit to the test of love.” 

We might simply respond that the “test of love,” apart from “what the Bible says,” is highly subjective and speculative.

Getting perspective on homosexuality in the context of 1 Corinthians 6:9–11. Although the focus of the above discussion—in the context of a discussion of homosexuality—has been to show that Paul indeed affirms the Old Testament prohibition of homosexual sex, we should not leave this text before observing some central points. 

First, it should be noted that homosexuality is not the focus of the larger text. To be sure, those who engage in homosexual acts are considered sinful, but they are not singled out. Rather, they are included in a much larger list of “the unrighteous,” with idolaters, thieves, greedy people, drunkards, verbally abusive people, and swindlers. Thus we do not do justice to the text if we single out homosexuality and fail to warn others who are in view. Homosexual acts ought to be discussed in the context of the more general indictment of sinners.

Second, it is best to understand those who are unrighteous and excluded from God’s kingdom in terms of habitual, unrepented practice and identity. The one who has committed these sins in the past who repents and is forgiven is not in view here. Neither is the one who continues to experience temptation in various ways, or who lapses into sin and repents of it. Instead, the warning Paul issue is for those who reject the call to repent and to walk in newness of life, and instead embrace what God declares to be sinful patterns of behavior, essentially identifying with those acts and desires instead of finding their identity in Christ.

Third, the condemnation of unrighteousness is followed by a reminder of the gospel and one’s identity in Christ. Some of the Corinthian Christians once practiced these things—“such were some of you”—and were under God’s judgment. But they had come to know the grace of God through Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit. They were forgiven and justified. It is as Paul says to the Colossians, “He has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son he loves” (Col. 1:13). A radical change has taken place—“but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified” (1 Cor. 6:11). No one is beyond God’s reach to save or to produce a radical transformation of both acts and desires.

Romans 1:18–32

Before considering what this text has to say about homosexual relations, it is important to note that Paul’s primary concern here is not with homosexuality. That is, even this text, which is one of the most important biblical texts in the debate about homosexuality, is about something much bigger. Homosexual relations are illustrative of the larger concern that Paul addresses. That larger concern is to explicate the gospel (Rom. 1:15–16), wherein the righteousness of God is revealed in his wrath against unrighteousness (v. 18), and in the salvation of sinners by faith (v. 17). 

First, Paul demonstrates the unrighteousness of the Gentiles (1:18–32), then he exposes the unrighteousness of the Jews (2:1–3:8) and all people (3:9–20).75 Paul’s Jewish readers may have eagerly agreed with Paul’s assessment of God’s judgment of the Gentiles in Romans 1, but then he asserts that the Jews too will be judged (Rom. 2). 

So before examining what Paul says about homosexuality in this text, it is critical to emphasize his larger argument, which is designed “to entice his readers first to feel revulsion and indignation against ‘those sinful pagans’ and then to recognize themselves as standing before God under the same judgment.”76 We ought to take heed, for we miss the point if we read Romans 1 and condemn homosexual relations, and fail to recognize God’s condemnation of human sin more broadly, including our own sin.

Within the context of Romans 1:18–32, the reference to homosexual relations is found in verses 25–27:

  They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served what has been created instead of the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen.

  For this reason, God delivered them over to disgraceful passions. Their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. The men in the same way also left natural relations with women and were inflamed in their lust for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the appropriate penalty of their error.

Is the problem simply excessive lust? Some authors who affirm consensual same-sex relationships argue that in Romans 1 Paul condemns homosexual relationships that are driven by excessive lust, not those that reflect commitment to the other person.77 Paul says that God “delivered them over to disgraceful passions” (v. 26), and that men “were inflamed in their lust for one another” (v. 27). Moreover, some Greco-Roman writers condemned male homosexual relations because they believed they were the result of an overflow of lust.

Is that Paul’s focus? It is highly unlikely. Sprinkle offers four reasons why.79 First, for ancient writers, excessive lust is but one reason that they reject same-sex relationships. Second, Paul rejects female same-sex relationships alongside of male, and female homosexuality was not associated with excessive lust.80 It is worth adding here that when Paul pairs female homosexual acts with male homosexual acts and condemns both equally, this is a major clue that he is not thinking merely of pederastic sex, or rape, or any other exploitative sex when he speaks of male homosexual acts. 

He doesn’t focus on the active or dominating partner. Rather, “the language is all-inclusive and suggests mutuality.” Third, the “excessive lust” view does not adequately account for Paul’s critique of homosexual relations as “against nature” (see below). Fourth, Paul’s use of the language of desire is focused on what it leads to—namely, the degrading of their bodies (v. 24) and unnatural sexual intercourse (vs. 26–27).

Further, in biblical terms, sinful lust does not merely refer to a desire that is excessive, for it includes pursuing a wrongful desire. When Jesus condemns lust in Matthew 5:28 and calls it adultery, the problem is not excessive desire, but simply sexual desire for another man’s wife.

What does “against nature” (παρὰ φύσιν) mean? In Romans 1:26, Paul says that women exchanged “natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” (or “against nature,” τὴν φυσικὴν χρῆσιν εἰς τὴν παρὰ φύσιν). 

The parallel in verse 27, where males left the “natural use” or “natural relations” with females for other males, “makes it unmistakably clear that the phrase refers to heterosexual intercourse as opposed to homosexual intercourse, which is categorized as ‘contrary to nature.’ ”81 John Boswell has made an influential argument that “against nature” refers to homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons. More recently, revisionist interpreters argue that it is a phrase used to reject any nonprocreative sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, or it refers to acts that are against cultural expectations, such as treating a man like a woman.

 In other words, in this latter sense, παρὰ φύσιν reflects a misogynistic culture. But these suggestions are highly unlikely, and there is no indication in Romans 1 that points to either of these.84 Elsewhere Paul speaks of marriage, and even sex within marriage (e.g., 1 Cor. 7) without a mention of procreation, and he does not hint at misogyny.85

Ancient writers spoke out against a variety of sexual behaviors that they believed to be immoral, including nonprocreative sex, masturbation, seeking only pleasure, and homosexual sex. But the technical term παρὰ φύσιν, “against nature,” is “reserved for same-sex erotic behavior.”86 Not all ancient writers condemned homosexual sex by any means, but those who did, when they used the phrase παρὰ φύσιν, we're claiming that it goes against the design of nature. It is sometimes applied to things that are against custom, but when Paul uses the phrase in Romans 1, given the fact that the text is steeped in references to creation, he indicates that sexual relations between members of the same sex are against the design and purposes of the Creator. Thus Hays rightly concludes,

The understanding of “nature” in this conventional language does not rest on empirical observation of what actually exists; instead, it appeals to a conception of what ought to be, of the world as designed by God and revealed through the stories and laws of Scripture. Those who indulge in sexual practices para physin are defying the Creator and demonstrating their own alienation from him.

Nature, creation, and Creator in Romans 1. Paul’s argument in Romans 1 is set in the context of several allusions to Creation in Genesis 1, meaning that Paul intends his depiction of sin to be in the context of God’s good purposes in creation, against which human beings have rebelled. In verse 20, Paul says, “Since the creation of the world” God has revealed his power and nature through creation. In verse 25, he asserts that people have worshiped and served the creation instead of the Creator.

The terms that Paul uses also draws attention to the creation account in Genesis.88 For instance, in Romans 1:26–27, Paul uses the terms ἄρσενες (males) and θήλειαι (females), which are the same terms found in Genesis 1:27 in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), which was used by many Jews in Paul’s day. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image; he created him in the image of God; he created them male [ἄρσεν] and female [θῆλυ].” So, when reading Romans 1:26–27, attention is drawn to God’s original design and purpose in creation, which has been upended.

One other allusion that can easily be overlooked relates to the terms used in Romans 1:23. It reads that human beings “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images [εἰκόνος] resembling [ὁμοιώματι] mortal man [ἀνθρώπου], birds [πετεινῶν], four-footed animals, and reptiles [ἑρπετῶν].” The five Greek terms that are used here are also used in the Greek translation of Genesis 1:26:89 “Then God said, ‘Let us make man [ἄνθρωπον] in our image [εἰκόνα], according to our likeness [ὁμοίωσιν]. 

They will rule the fish of the sea, the birds [πετεινῶν] of the sky, the livestock, all the earth, and the creatures [or reptiles, ἑρπετῶν] that crawl on the earth.” Greek readers would not miss this reference to the original creation. The point is clear, that human beings were made distinct and complementary as male and female, to rule over the earth as God’s representative, but they have rebelled against God and his purposes. This is seen in the language of exchange: human beings have exchanged the glory of God for creatures (v. 23), the truth of God for a lie (v. 25), and females exchanged “natural sexual intercourse for what is natural” (sex with males for sex with females, v. 26), and “in the same way,” men have exchanged sex with females for sex with males (v. 27).

The conclusion is difficult to miss, that sexual relations between members of the same sex is a departure from (and rejection of) God’s purposes in creation. Paul doesn’t merely reject a form of homosexual relations found in his culture. Rather, he indicates that “what is wrong with same-sex relations transcends culture. Violating God-given gender boundaries is universal and absolute. They go against the way God created males and females and intended them to relate to each other sexually.”

Conclusions on Paul’s view of homosexuality in Romans 1. It is clear that Paul considers homosexual relations to be sinful, stemming from rebellion against God and his design and purposes in creation. Yet we are reminded that all sin bears the same pattern (Rom. 1:28–32), that all are guilty and deserve God’s wrath, as Paul makes clear to the Jews beginning in Romans 2. No one can boast, for justification is by grace through faith in Jesus (Rom. 3:24–25). Instead of drumming up special condemnation for homosexuals, Paul in Romans describes the situation that all people are in apart from repentance and faith in Jesus. In a world that is in rebellion against God, there are many casualties. Sin has distorted human understanding (vv. 21–22) and desire (vv. 24–28) yet we are responsible and accountable to a righteous God.

What does Jesus say about homosexuality?

Jesus does not address homosexuality directly. But that doesn’t mean he has nothing to say about it. Indeed, to defend homosexual relations on the basis that Jesus did not condemn or even speak about homosexuality is unconvincing, for Jesus says nothing about rape or incest or polyamory. An appeal from silence is weak at best. Even though Jesus says nothing directly about homosexuality, there are good reasons to assert that he would not affirm same-sex relations. There are also good reasons to assert that he would love homosexuals and invite them to follow him.

First, Jesus would not affirm homosexual acts because, if anything, when it comes to sexual behavior, Jesus takes “a very strict stance compared to other rabbis of the day.” It seems likely, given his teaching on divorce and adultery, for instance, that he would have upheld the law and taken a strict stance on homosexual acts, not a lenient one. 

Other rabbis of Jesus’s day condemned homosexual acts. In fact, every Jewish writer who mentions homosexual acts of any kind, from at least five hundred years before Jesus to at least five hundred years after Jesus, condemns such acts. If Jesus affirmed homosexual acts of any kind, he would be “the only Jewish person in more than a thousand years to do so. It’s not impossible, just highly unlikely.”

Second, Jesus would not affirm homosexual acts because he affirms the Old Testament, his only Scriptures. Where he “adjusts” any teaching, as perhaps he does when he limits legitimate divorce to sexual immorality, it is clear in the text. Thus we might expect some hint that he overturned or did not endorse what the Old Testament—Jesus’s Scripture—says about homosexual acts. Yet, “when it comes to same-sex relations, there is nothing explicit nor implicit suggesting that Jesus corrected, improved upon, or did away with the sexual commands in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Nothing. There is no evidence.”

Further, Jesus affirms the creation pattern for marriage. When Jesus is approached by Pharisees who seek to test him on the question of divorce—and to justify their view of divorce—Jesus cites the creation accounts in Genesis 1–2. He begins by citing Genesis 1:27, “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female” (Mark 10:6). Immediately he follows this by citing Genesis 2:24, saying, “for this reason a man will leave his father and mother 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” (Mark 10:7–9). I examined the question of divorce in the previous chapter. What is instructive here is what Jesus teaches about marriage and sexual relations, which are restricted to marriage. To teach that married couples should not divorce, because marriage is a one-flesh relationship joined by God, Jesus would only need to cite Genesis 2:24. But he first cites Genesis 1:27, that “from the beginning of creation God made them male and female.” Here Jesus highlights not only the one-flesh relationship of marriage but the sexual differentiation of male and female as well. 

If sexual difference, in terms of marriage and sexual relations, was unimportant to Jesus, there was no need for him to cite Genesis 1:27. “Such a difference is, in itself, irrelevant to the question of divorce.” One thing must be added before leaving this point. It would be hypocritical for Christians who have divorced their spouse for a reason other than adultery, or who have condoned such divorces, to use this text to condemn homosexual relationships. As Sprinkle states, “How pretentious would that be—using a passage that’s directed at you to sling at someone else?”

Third, while Jesus would not affirm homosexual relations, he would reach out in love to homosexuals and invite them to follow him, with all that entails for anyone who will follow him, including repentance and obedience. But, as Sprinkle asserts, “Jesus pulls repentance and obedience out of our souls,” not by condemning and rejecting sinners but by love and its demands. All too often people who condemn homosexual acts show no love for people experiencing same-sex attraction. Jesus loved sinners such as Matthew and Zacchaeus, tax collectors. Again, Sprinkle observes, “Jesus’ love comes without a background check.” Jesus desires and demands obedience, but “to get that obedience he fronts love.” People were drawn to Jesus not because Jesus affirmed their behavior, but because he loved them and affirmed their humanity.

Conclusions on the Bible and homosexuality

The aim of the preceding survey has been to understand what Scripture teaches about homosexual practice. The conclusion is that, where Scripture speaks about homosexual acts, it clearly and consistently condemns them. Further, where Scripture speaks of sexuality and marriage, it clearly and consistently affirms God’s design and purpose in creating male and female for the one-flesh relationship of marriage. Revisionists argue that God has created and delights in a variety of sexual identities and expressions.

This is in spite of the fact that there is no evidence for it found in the creation accounts or the rest of Scripture, forcing the conclusion that God keeps hidden that which he delights in. Perhaps we are to believe that the biblical authors had no idea of this form of sexuality that God delights in, or perhaps there are simply cultural factors that obscure Scripture. But it is hard to understand why there is no celebration in Scripture itself, but only condemnation, if God delights in homosexuality. This tension is why it is difficult to take seriously the claim of some who affirm homosexual practice and say they hold to a high view of Scripture.

If Scripture is clear in rejecting homosexual practice, however, it is not a central emphasis. Rather, it is one example of human sin that stems from idolatry and rebellion against God, alongside fornication, adultery, lust, greed, and a catalog of other sins. Same-sex desire, like lust and greed, is a mark of living in a fallen world, where our very thoughts and desires are confused. 

Christians ought to know this better than anyone, and thus ought to offer to all a message of grace, forgiveness, love, and a call to repent and trust in Jesus and find deep fellowship and love in the church. Without this message of forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus and his work of reconciliation on the cross, there is no gospel. And yet sometimes LGBT people hear only condemnation, causing them to avoid the church and seek community with those who proclaim a message of acceptance. Sprinkle relays the common testimony of those with same-sex attraction in relation to the church:

 I grew up in the church. I tried to follow Jesus. When I hit puberty, I experienced unwanted same-sex attraction that caused me unbearable pain and confusion. When I tried to talk about it, I was shunned, confronted, and made to feel like a monster. I become depressed, which led to isolation, which led to more depression, which led to fleeing the church in search of love.

This should not be the case. If the church is formed by the truth of Scripture and the reality of redemption and reconciliation in Christ, and Christians are known by their love, there should be a different testimony. The church should be a place where the gospel is preached, where sinners, broken by the fall and the curse of sin, are told of the love of God who sent his son to die on the cross to redeem sinners and restore a relationship with the redeemed. It is where people are called to repent and believe in the one who broke the curse and find refuge in him and among his people; where their burden is lightened; where they can share their struggles and be met with grace and encouragement and love; where they find people who will listen and pray, and who will help others to find their identity in Christ and to follow him faithfully.101 The biblical message concerning those who are attracted to members of the same sex is the same as its message for everyone else.

Magnuson, K. (2020). Invitation to Christian Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues (pp. 226–252). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic.