Does the Bible address homosexuality?

All You Need Is Love and Other Justifications

Various other attempts are designed to justify homosexuality as acceptable within biblical morality. When it is shown that the passages that supposedly condemn homosexuality actually do condemn homosexuality, then the revisionists must find other ways to defend their preferences. 

The arguments that follow are those that did not fall precisely into our discussion of the various biblical texts that were surveyed. These arguments, as with the others we have considered, are also put forth as “biblical.” These are supposedly based upon the truths of Scripture when taken as a whole. To these we now turn.

Objection Stated

The words “homosexual” and “homosexuality” are not found in the Bible.

This is one of the most common objections raised by those who teach the compatibility of homosexuality and the Bible. This statement has become mantra-like due to its frequency of utterance and is one of the first comments heard from those who argue for the Bible’s acceptance of homosexuality. 

It is presumed that if the Bible nowhere uses the word homosexuality, it is rather unlikely that the Bible condemns the practice. We have already seen that this claim is false (see chapter 7) and that the Bible repeatedly condemns homosexual orientation and acts. The Bible unquestionably refers to homosexuality and (this may sound silly) does so by referring to homosexuality. Consider these words from Scanzoni and Mollenkott:

The Bible does not have a great deal to say about homosexuality, and in the original languages the term itself is never used.1

Biblical Response

Frequency of occurrence or repetition does not make something increase in moral reprehensibility. If something is mentioned only one time in all of Scripture and it is labelled abhorrent in that single place, it would remain abhorrent. 

After all, as far as specific references are concerned, homosexuality is mentioned more often in the Bible than the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is known as the “unpardonable sin” and an “eternal sin” (Matthew 12:31; Mark 3:29). 

Homosexuality is referred to as sin in both the Old and the New Testaments.

Scanzoni and Mollenkott wrote that the term homosexuality is “never used” and “the Bible does not have a great deal to say” about homosexuality. 

Yet, these authors do admit that the Bible speaks of “homosexual acts.”2 This is striking in its incongruity. 

Does the Bible have a little to say even if it does not have a “great deal” to say? 

If the Bible does speak of homosexuality, even a little bit, then the Bible speaks of homosexuality. Perhaps the authors of this apparent contradiction mean to speak of the distinction between act and orientation, between deed and desire. We do recognise a distinction—a functional distinction—between an act and an interest, but we do not recognise an ethical or moral distinction between a deed and the desire to perform such a deed. The act of adultery is immoral as well as the desire (lust, longing) to commit adultery (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10; Matthew 5:28; Genesis 39:7–10).3 The Bible does refer to homosexuality and presents it as something morally reprehensible.

Although we strenuously disagree, we are sure that Scanzoni and Mollenkott meant that an equivalent word for homosexuality is not found in the original languages when they write, “and in the original languages the term itself is never used.” Since the Bible was written in Hebrew 4 and Greek, it goes without saying that the English word homosexuality would not appear in the original languages.

Such a statement fails to recognise that the word used by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is a compound word that refers to males in bed.5 We understand that those who are attempting to revise the clear teaching of the Bible claim this word has been improperly translated (see chapter seven), but they are incorrect. 

We have observed that Paul does use a word that is legitimately translated by our present English words “homosexual” or “homosexuality.” However, there is more. The Bible more often describes the behaviour that has come to be known as homosexuality. So, although a specific word may not be employed in the majority of the biblical passages, the description of homosexuality most certainly is. 

As a matter of fact, many early English Bible translations were content to use the word “sodomite” or “buggerer” (one who practices buggery) to refer to homosexuals.6

Early English translations of the Bible also employed descriptive phraseology to refer to homosexuals. The Bishops Bible of 1575, the Collins Bible of 1791, and the Webster Bible of 1833 refer to homosexuals as “abusers of themselves with mankind” in 1 Corinthians and as those who “defile themselves with mankind” in 1 Timothy. It is granted, the precise word “homosexual” is not of ancient origin; however, there are plenty of other terms and descriptions that were employed.

Descriptions of homosexuality, rather than the employment of a single word, are found throughout the Bible. In Genesis 19 we find the men of Sodom desiring to have sexual relations with the male visitors in Lot’s house. 

The desire of these townsmen of Sodom is often translated by the words “to know,” and, as we saw in chapter 2, this descriptively translates the Hebrew word that refers to an intimate, sexual type of “knowing.” Furthermore, the book of Leviticus describes the sin of homosexuality as a male lying with a male as one would with a female. 

The Hebrew word for “lying” is the same word that is used for “bed” or for sexual intercourse elsewhere in the Hebrew Old Testament.7 Finally, Paul also describes the deeds of homosexuality, thus showing his variety of expression. 

While he did use a single term in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy for homosexuality, he employs descriptive terminology in Romans, chapter 1: “For their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error” (vv. 26–27).

Therefore it is not correct to assert that the Bible does not refer to homosexuality—it most clearly does. However, a final comment in this regard needs to be made. 

It must be noted that the Bible nowhere uses the word “trinity.” If, because of this, someone were to assert that the trinity is not biblical because the word “trinity” is not found in the pages of the Bible, we would immediately recognise the unbiblical thinking that was taking place and see an evident departure from the Christian faith.

Objection Stated

Using the Bible to oppose homosexuality is a rather recent occurrence.

Similar to the previous argument about the word “homosexual,” it is commonly claimed that the Bible only recently is being interpreted to condemn homosexuality. It is argued that translations of certain passages are being accomplished in accordance with “anti-gay bias” and that such opposition from the church has not always been present. Daniel Helminiak wrote,

Taken on its own terms and in its own time, the Bible nowhere condemns homosexuality as we know it today.… It should be considered outrageous for any educated person to quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality.… A millennium ago, Western society was rather indifferent to homosexuality and even supportive of it.”8

Later he offered these surprising comments:

Since about the 12th Century, this story [regarding the destruction of Sodom] has been commonly taken to condemn homosexuality. The very word “sodomite” was taken to refer to someone who engages in anal sex, and the sin of Sodom was taken to be male homogenital acts. So supposedly God condemned and punished the citizens of Sodom, the Sodomites, for homogenital activity.9

Biblical Response

While it is important to note that truth is not determined by the counting of heads, we will also demonstrate Helminiak’s view of history to be inaccurate. Historically, Christian interpretation of the Bible has recognised homosexuality as contrary to God’s law and that God’s judgment did come upon Sodom, in part, due to homosexuality. 

When Helminiak writes, “since about the 12th Century,” he misleads his readers into thinking that before this time the sins of Sodom were not understood to be of a homosexual nature.10 While it requires only one citation that is before the twelfth century to refute such a claim, let us consider a number of them.

Athenagorus (second century)

Athenagorus offered a defense of the moral excellence of the Christians in contrast with their accusers. He refers to the “shocking abomination” of male intercourse:

But though such is our character (Oh! why should I speak of things unfit to be uttered?), the things said of us are an example of the proverb, “The harlot reproves the chaste.” 

For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure—who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God (for beauty on earth is not self-made, but sent hither by the hand and will of God)—these men, I say, revile us for the very things which they are conscious of themselves, and ascribe to their own gods, boasting of them as noble deeds, and worthy of the gods. 

These adulterers and pederasts defame the eunuchs and the once-married (while they themselves live like fishes; for these gulp down whatever falls in their way, and the stronger chases the weaker: and, in fact, this is to feed upon human flesh, to do violence in contravention of the very laws which you and your ancestors, with due care for all that is fair and right, have enacted), so that not even the governors of the provinces sent by you suffice for the hearing of the complaints against those, to whom it even is not lawful, when they are struck, not to offer themselves for more blows, nor when defamed not to bless: for it is not enough to be just (and justice is to return like for like), but it is incumbent on us to be good and patient of evil.11

Tertullian (c. 160–225)

Tertullian referred to the deeds of homosexual intimacy in the terms employed by the apostle Paul; they are “against nature.” Tertullian also referred to such deeds as contrary to the law of God:

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman’s veil he says, “Does not even Nature teach you?”—as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural, by way of penal retribution for their error.12

Origen (c. 185–254)

Origen speaks of those who know the Lord Jesus Christ and declares “that they often exhibit in their character a high degree of gravity, purity, and integrity.” On the other hand, those who do not follow Jesus “have despised these virtues and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, ‘men with men working that which is unseemly.’ ”13 In this we see that Origen referred to homosexual acts as sodomy and, contrary to law, they are lawless.

Cyprian (d. 258)

Cyprian spoke of the value of Christian morality and decried the ethical baseness of those who followed lawless lusts. He clearly spoke of homosexual lusts as reprehensible:

For, their own proper character being overcome, it sends the entire man under its yoke of lust, alluring at first, that it may do the more mischief by its attraction,—the foe of continency, exhausting both means and modesty; the perilous madness of lust frequently attaining to the blood, the destruction of a good conscience, the mother of impenitence, the ruin of a more virtuous age, the disgrace of one’s race, driving away all confidence in blood and family, intruding one’s own children upon the affections of strangers, interpolating the offspring of an unknown and corrupted stock into the testaments of others. And this also, very frequently burning without reference to sex, and not restraining itself within the permitted limits, thinks it little satisfaction to itself, unless even in the bodies of men it seeks, not a new pleasure, but goes in quest of extraordinary and revolting extravagances, contrary to nature itself, of men with men.14

These church fathers, all of them before the twelfth century, are clear: homosexuality is contrary to the law of God, it is against nature, and it is not consistent with biblical morality. These fathers appealed to an abiding standard of morality (God’s law) and declared homosexuality to be contrary to it. They also referred to homosexuality as being part of the sin of Sodom. One could also refer to the writings of Lactantius,15 Eusebius,16 Athanasius,17 Chrysostom,18 and Augustine19 and find the same conclusions.20

These results are consistent with those preached in Chrysostom’s Fourth Homily on the Epistle to the Romans and are worth reading today (this homily is reproduced in its entirety in appendix B). The claim that the Bible prohibits homosexuality is not a recent development. It is the Christian interpretation of antiquity.21

1 Scanzoni and Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor, 54.

2 Ibid., 60.

3 It is interesting to note with regard to this issue of deed and desire that the townsmen of Sodom were desirous of sexual intimacy with the men who were lodging in Lot’s home; they did not engage in any deeds of sexual intimacy at all and they were yet accused of “great wickedness.”

4 Some of the Old Testament was written in Aramaic as well.

5 Paul uses the word arsenokoites, which is a compound word of arsen, meaning man or male, and koite, which means bed or intercourse and is where we derive our word “coitus.” Paul uses a word that refers to male intercourse and it is the very same word used in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 in the Septuagint.

6 See the Geneva Bible of 1560 (1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 1 Kings 13:7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10).

7 The Hebrew word is mish-cov. Compare Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 with Numbers 31:17–18, 35, and Judges 21:11–12.

8 What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, 13, 23.

9 Ibid., 44.

10 In his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, John Boswell argued similarly: “Within a few generations of the first disciples, the majority of converts to Christianity were not Jews, and their attitude toward Jewish law was to say the least ambivalent. Most Christians regarded the Old Testament as an elaborate metaphor for Christian revelation; extremely few considered it morally binding in particular details” (102). Later Boswell comments, “Almost no early Christian writers appealed to Leviticus as authority against homosexual acts … it would simply not have occurred to most early Christians to invoke the authority of the old law to justify the morality of the new” (104–05). This is patently false and reveals Boswell’s misunderstanding of the relationship between law and grace (see appendix A). The nationality of the converts to Christianity did not change the basis for moral behavior. The writers of the New Testament, even those who ministered primarily to Gentiles, faithfully appealed to the Old Testament law in support of their instruction. It is simply not true to accuse them of “ambivalence” with regard to the “old law.” Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–9), instructed the Gentile churches—by quotation and application—with the law of Moses (see Romans 7:7–12; 13:7–10; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 9:9–14; Galatians 5:14; Ephesians 6:2; 1 Timothy 5:18–19). On the contrary, it is Boswell who views the Old Testament law with ambivalence.

11 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 2; Fathers of the Second Century: Athenagorus, chapter 34, 147.

12 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 3; Tertullian, The Chaplet, or De Corona, chapter 6, 96.

13 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 4; Origen, Against Celsus, book 7, chapter 49, 631.

14 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 5; Cyprian, The Treatises of Cyprian—“Of the Discipline and Advantage of Chastity,” 588.

15 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 7; Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, book 1, chapter 11, 20; and Of the Manner in Which the Persecutors Died, volume 7, chapter 8, 303–04.

16 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, volume 1; Church History of Eusebius: “The Oration of Eusebius Pamphilus, in Praise of the Emperor Constantine,” chapter 13, 600–03.

17 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, volume 4; Athanasius: Select Writings and Letters, Against the Heathen, 26, 17–18. See also, Select Writings and Letters, “On the Incarnation of the Word”, volume 4, section 5, 38–39.

18 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume 11; Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans—Homily 4 on Romans 1:26–27, 355–59. See also The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume 12; Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians—Homily 26 on 1 Corinthians 11:2 (verse 15), 154.

19 The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume 5; Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works: The Merits and Forgiveness of Sins and on the Baptism of Infants—“Sin and the Penalty of Sin the Same,” book 3, chapter 24 [xxii], 129. See also The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume 5; Augustin’s Anti-Pelagian Works: On Marriage and Concupiscence—“He Answers the Arguments of Julianus,” book 2, chapter 35 [xx]. What is the Natural Use of the Woman? What is the Unnatural Use? 297.

20 Concerning the city of Sodom, see the Epistle to the Corinthians by Clement of Rome (The Apostolic Fathers, 46) and Irenaeus’s Against Heresies (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 1, 504ff, book IV.31.1 and 3). One should also reference Josephus (c. 37–100) in this regard. Although he is not a church father, he is a writer of antiquity and spoke unambiguously regarding the sins of Sodom and the destruction of that city. Consider the following citations from his works:

[While commenting on the location of Lake Asphaltitis, he mentions] “The country of Sodom borders upon it. It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that Divine fire, and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits; which fruits have a colour as if they were fit to be eaten, but if you pluck them with your hands, they dissolve into smoke and ashes. And thus what is related of this land of Sodom hath these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us” (Wars of the Jews, Book IV.8.4).

“About this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it” (Antiquities of the Jews, Book 1, XI.1).

Furthermore, the pillar of salt, which was Lot’s wife, was still standing during the lifetime of Josephus: “for I have seen it, and it remains at this day” (Antiquities, Book 1, XI.4).

21 Contrary to popular opinion, homosexuality was not accepted in nonchristian cultures of antiquity as many would have us believe. In Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars, we read of Julius Caesar’s apparent homosexuality with King Nicomedes as something that was “always a dark stain on his reputation and frequently quoted by his enemies” (35).

White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 163–176). Bethany House Publishers.