Homosexuality and the Bible

Introduction

The relationship between homosexuality and the Bible is one of the most contested topics in contemporary theology. Six passages—often called the “clobber passages” by those who regard their traditional application as harmful—form the textual basis for nearly all biblical arguments about same-sex sexual conduct: the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1–29), two Levitical prohibitions (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), Paul’s letter to the Romans (Romans 1:26–27), and two vice lists in the Pauline and disputed letters (1 Corinthians 6:9–10 and 1 Timothy 1:10).⁶ The debate over these texts involves not only philology and historical context but also fundamental questions about hermeneutics, the nature of biblical authority, and the relevance of ancient moral categories to modern life.⁷

This article examines each passage in its original linguistic and cultural setting, surveys the major traditional and revisionist interpretations, and considers the hermeneutical principles that shape how different Christian traditions approach these texts.

Sexual Orientation as a Modern Category

A foundational issue in the debate is the concept of sexual orientation itself. The term “homosexuality” was coined in 1868 by the Hungarian-German writer Karl-Maria Kertbeny, and the idea of a fixed, innate sexual orientation—a stable psychological trait defining a category of persons—is a product of nineteenth-century medical and psychological discourse.¹ Ancient Mediterranean cultures, including those that produced the biblical texts, did not categorize people by sexual orientation. Greek and Roman writers discussed same-sex acts in terms of active versus passive roles, social status, age, and conformity to gender norms, not in terms of an essential identity category.¹⁴

This historical gap creates an interpretive problem. Revisionist scholars such as John Boswell and James Brownson argue that the biblical writers could not have been condemning a concept—lifelong, consensual same-sex partnership between social equals—that did not exist in their cultural framework.¹³ Traditional scholars such as Robert Gagnon counter that the biblical prohibitions target same-sex acts per se, regardless of whether the ancients had a concept of orientation, and that the absence of the modern category does not limit the scope of the prohibition.⁶ This disagreement over whether the ancient texts address the same phenomenon that modern debates concern runs beneath every passage discussed below.

Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

In Genesis 19:1–11, two angels visit the city of Sodom, and Lot offers them hospitality. The men of Sodom surround Lot’s house and demand that he bring out his guests so they may “know” them (yada in Hebrew). Lot refuses, offering his virgin daughters instead. The angels strike the mob with blindness, and God subsequently destroys the city.

The traditional Christian reading, dating to at least the first century CE (as reflected in Jude 7), interprets this passage as a condemnation of homosexual desire and conduct, and the English word “sodomy” derives directly from this reading.⁸ Mark Jordan has documented how the medieval theological category of “sodomy” was a later invention, not a straightforward extraction from the Genesis narrative.⁸

Revisionist scholars raise several objections. First, the Hebrew verb yada (“to know”) appears 943 times in the Hebrew Bible, and only approximately ten of those instances carry a sexual meaning; the demand may have been for hostile interrogation of the strangers rather than sexual contact.¹ Second, even if the intent was sexual, the scenario describes attempted gang rape of guests—a violation of the ancient Near Eastern hospitality code—not consensual sexual relations. Third, other biblical references to Sodom’s sin make no mention of homosexuality: Ezekiel 16:49–50 identifies the sin as pride, excess of food, prosperous ease, and neglect of the poor; Isaiah 1:10–17 associates Sodom with injustice.⁴

Gagnon and other traditional scholars respond that the sexual dimension cannot be dismissed given the parallel account of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19, where a nearly identical scenario results in heterosexual gang rape, and given Jude 7’s reference to Sodom pursuing “other flesh” (sarkos heteras).⁶ The passage is generally regarded by scholars on both sides as the weakest textual basis for a blanket prohibition on homosexuality, since its primary concern—whether sexual or not—is clearly with violence and violation rather than consensual behavior.³

Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

Leviticus 18:22 (NRSV) reads: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” Leviticus 20:13 (NRSV) prescribes the death penalty for both parties: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

These are the most explicit statements in the Hebrew Bible about male same-sex sexual acts. They appear within the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17–26), a section of Old Testament law concerned with maintaining Israel’s ritual and moral distinctiveness from surrounding nations, particularly Canaanite practices.⁶

The Hebrew Term Toevah

The word translated “abomination” is the Hebrew toevah (תועבה). The meaning and scope of this term are vigorously debated. Revisionist scholars note that toevah is distinct from the Hebrew word zimma (which denotes intrinsic moral evil, such as incest in Leviticus 18:17). Toevah frequently refers to ritual or cultic impurity—acts associated with idolatrous practices of Israel’s neighbors—rather than acts considered universally and inherently immoral.¹ Boswell argued that this distinction means the Levitical prohibition concerns ritual purity and boundary-maintenance rather than a timeless moral judgment.¹

Traditional scholars respond that the ritual-versus-moral distinction is overdrawn. Gagnon notes that toevah is also used for acts widely recognized as moral violations, including child sacrifice (Deuteronomy 12:31) and dishonest business practices (Proverbs 11:1).⁶ Furthermore, the Leviticus 18 list includes incest, bestiality, and adultery alongside the same-sex prohibition, and few scholars would classify all of those as merely ritual concerns.¹⁸

The Hermeneutical Problem of Selective Application

The most persistent challenge to invoking Leviticus in modern ethical arguments is the question of selective application. The same Holiness Code prohibits eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10–12), wearing garments of mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), trimming the edges of one’s beard (Leviticus 19:27), and planting two kinds of seed in the same field (Leviticus 19:19). Christians universally disregard these regulations. The question of why the sexual prohibitions retain binding force while the dietary and textile rules do not is a central hermeneutical issue.⁴¹¹

Several frameworks have been proposed to resolve this. The most common traditional approach distinguishes between moral law (permanently binding), ceremonial law (fulfilled in Christ), and civil law (specific to ancient Israel’s theocracy). Under this taxonomy, the sexual prohibitions belong to the moral category and therefore remain in force, while dietary and textile rules are ceremonial and thus superseded by the New Covenant.¹⁸ Critics of this framework, including William Webb, note that the tripartite division is not found within the text of the Hebrew Bible itself and was developed much later as a hermeneutical convenience. The text of Leviticus makes no distinction between “moral” and “ceremonial” laws; they are interspersed without hierarchy.¹¹

Webb’s own “redemptive movement” hermeneutic proposes that Scripture reveals a trajectory—moving from the surrounding culture’s norms toward greater justice and liberation—and that the interpreter should follow that trajectory to its logical conclusion, even beyond the explicit statements of the text. On this reading, just as the Bible’s trajectory on slavery ultimately leads to abolition despite the text never explicitly condemning the institution, the trajectory on sexuality may point beyond the ancient prohibitions.¹¹

For a fuller treatment of the categories and continuing applicability of Old Testament law, see Old Testament Law and Morality.

Romans 1:26–27

Romans 1:26–27 (NRSV) reads: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

This passage, from the undisputed Pauline letters, is widely regarded as the most significant New Testament text in the debate. It is the only biblical passage that explicitly references female same-sex behavior, and it grounds its argument in the concept of “nature” (physis in Greek).⁶

The Argument from Nature (Physis)

Paul’s claim that same-sex acts are “against nature” (para physin) is pivotal. The meaning of physis in first-century Greco-Roman thought is contested. Traditional interpreters read it as referring to the created order established by God—the biological and teleological complementarity of male and female bodies as described in Genesis 1–2.⁶¹⁸ On this reading, “against nature” means contrary to God’s design for human sexuality.

Revisionist scholars offer several alternative readings. Brownson argues that physis in Stoic and Pauline usage refers to one’s individual nature or disposition, not to a universal biological design. Under this reading, Paul is condemning those who act “against their own nature”—that is, heterosexual persons engaging in same-sex acts out of excessive lust, a scenario intelligible in a culture without the concept of sexual orientation.³ Boswell similarly argued that para physin means “beyond what is customary” rather than “in violation of natural law.”¹ Dale Martin notes that Paul uses the same phrase (para physin) in Romans 11:24 to describe God grafting Gentiles into the olive tree of Israel, an act Paul clearly approves of, which complicates any reading that treats the phrase as an absolute moral condemnation.⁵

Bernadette Brooten, whose work on female homoeroticism in the ancient world is among the most thorough, challenges the revisionist position by demonstrating that some ancient writers were in fact aware of what they considered stable same-sex desire in women, and that Paul’s condemnation likely encompasses such persons rather than being limited to heterosexuals acting against type.¹⁴ Her work complicates both traditional and revisionist readings by showing that the ancient world’s understanding of sexuality was more varied than either side sometimes acknowledges.

Rhetorical Context

An important but often overlooked element is the rhetorical function of Romans 1:18–32 within the letter’s larger argument. Paul’s catalogue of Gentile sins in chapter 1 sets up the rhetorical reversal in Romans 2:1: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself.” Several scholars, including Martin, have argued that Paul is deliberately deploying conventional Jewish rhetoric about Gentile depravity in order to subvert the self-righteous judgment of his audience.⁵¹⁶ On this reading, the passage’s primary theological point is about universal human sinfulness and the impossibility of self-justification, not about establishing a hierarchy of sins.

1 Corinthians 6:9–10

1 Corinthians 6:9–10 (NRSV) lists those who will not inherit the kingdom of God: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes [malakoi], sodomites [arsenokoitai]…”

The translation of two Greek words in this vice list—malakoi and arsenokoitai—is the crux of the dispute.

Malakoi

The Greek word malakoi (μαλακοί) literally means “soft ones.” In broader Greek usage, it was applied to a wide range of behaviors considered effeminate or self-indulgent: wearing luxurious clothing, being overly devoted to personal grooming, lacking courage in battle, or being morally weak in general.¹² Martin’s influential 1996 essay demonstrated that the word had no fixed meaning equivalent to “homosexual” or even “passive homosexual partner” in first-century Greek. The NRSV’s translation “male prostitutes” and the NIV’s 2011 decision to combine malakoi and arsenokoitai into a single phrase (“men who have sex with men”) both represent interpretive choices rather than straightforward translations.¹²⁵

Traditional scholars maintain that the pairing of malakoi with arsenokoitai in the vice list suggests that Paul had the passive and active partners in male same-sex intercourse in view, respectively.⁶ The translation history, however, reveals significant instability: the King James Version (1611) rendered malakoi as “effeminate,” and it was not until the mid-twentieth century that English translations began consistently linking the term to homosexuality.⁵

Arsenokoitai

The word arsenokoitai (ἀρσενοκοῖται) is exceptionally rare. It appears nowhere in extant Greek literature before Paul, and some scholars believe Paul coined it.² Its etymology is compound: arsen (male) + koite (bed), which appears to be a direct calque of the Septuagint’s Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, where the phrases arsenos koiten appear.⁶ This etymological link to Leviticus is one of the strongest arguments that Paul had the Levitical prohibition specifically in mind.

However, Martin and Scroggs have argued that a word’s etymology does not determine its meaning in usage. The few post-Pauline occurrences of arsenokoitai in early Christian texts (such as the Sibylline Oracles and acts of John) place it in contexts suggesting economic exploitation or abuse rather than consensual same-sex relationships.¹²² Scroggs proposed that the word specifically referred to the active partner in pederasty—the exploitative sexual relationship between an adult man and an adolescent boy that was widespread in the Greco-Roman world.²

Gagnon counters that the etymological evidence is too strong to dismiss: a compound word meaning “male-bedders,” derived from the Septuagint text of Leviticus, most naturally refers to men who have sexual intercourse with other males, without limitation to pederasty or exploitation.⁶

1 Timothy 1:10

1 Timothy 1:10 (NRSV) includes arsenokoitai in another vice list: “fornicators, sodomites [arsenokoitais], slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching.”

The same philological debates surrounding arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians apply here. An additional consideration is that 1 Timothy is one of the Pastoral Epistles, and many scholars regard it as pseudepigraphical—written in Paul’s name by a later author, perhaps in the early second century.⁵ If the letter is not authentically Pauline, it reflects the views of a later Christian community rather than Paul himself, which may affect how much weight it carries in theological arguments that privilege Paul’s own thought.

Martin notes that in this list, arsenokoitai appears between “fornicators” (pornois) and “slave traders” (andrapodistais), and suggests the proximity to slave traders may indicate that the word refers to those who sexually exploit enslaved persons rather than to same-sex relations generally.¹² Traditional scholars regard this argument from word order as speculative, noting that ancient vice lists do not necessarily follow thematic groupings.⁶

Evangelical Protestant Scholarship

Conservative evangelical scholarship generally maintains that all six passages, taken together, constitute a coherent biblical witness against same-sex sexual activity. Gagnon’s The Bible and Homosexual Practice (2001) is the most comprehensive academic treatment from this perspective, arguing that the creation narratives (Genesis 1–2) establish male-female complementarity as a foundational theological principle, and that every biblical reference to same-sex acts is negative.⁶

Within evangelical scholarship, a growing “Side B” position—represented by Wesley Hill’s Washed and Waiting (2010) and Preston Sprinkle’s People to Be Loved (2015)—affirms that same-sex attraction is not itself sinful but maintains that same-sex sexual activity is incompatible with Scripture. This position advocates for celibacy among gay and lesbian Christians and emphasizes the cultivation of deep non-sexual friendships.¹⁵¹⁹

The question of biblical inerrancy is central to evangelical treatments of this topic. Scholars working within an inerrancy framework typically argue that the “plain sense” of Scripture is clear and that revisionist readings are driven by cultural accommodation rather than by legitimate textual evidence.¹⁸

Mainline Protestant Scholarship

Mainline Protestant denominations have been the primary institutional site of the debate. Scholars such as Brownson, Martin, Countryman, and Johnson approach the texts with methods of historical criticism that emphasize the distance between the ancient and modern worlds. Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Sexuality (2013) argues that the Bible’s sexual ethic is best understood as centered on kinship, one-flesh union, and mutual self-giving rather than on anatomical complementarity, and that same-sex unions can fulfill these deeper biblical values.³

William Countryman’s Dirt, Greed, and Sex (1988) proposed an influential framework distinguishing between purity concerns (which the New Testament consistently relativizes) and property or justice concerns (which remain in force). On this analysis, the Levitical prohibitions fall into the purity category and are therefore not binding on Christians, while Paul’s concern in Romans is with impurity language rather than with justice or harm.⁹

Matthew Vines, while not an academic scholar, brought revisionist arguments to a popular evangelical audience with God and the Gay Christian (2014), arguing that the biblical authors did not have loving, committed same-sex relationships in view and that affirming such relationships is consistent with Scripture’s deeper moral vision.⁴

Catholic Scholarship

Official Catholic teaching, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2357–2359), describes homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered” while affirming that persons with homosexual inclinations “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and are called to chastity.²¹ The Catholic position draws not only on biblical texts but also on natural law theory, particularly the Thomistic argument that sexual acts are ordered toward procreation and must occur within marriage between a man and a woman.

Catholic moral theology thus does not depend on the exegesis of individual biblical passages in the same way that Protestant arguments do. Even if every revisionist reading of the six passages were accepted, the natural law argument would remain independently operative. This has led some Catholic moral theologians to engage the biblical texts less centrally, while others, such as those contributing to the volume edited by David Balch, have offered careful exegetical work that intersects with the broader scholarly debate.⁷¹⁷

Broader Hermeneutical Questions

The debate over homosexuality and the Bible ultimately rests on deeper hermeneutical commitments that extend well beyond the six passages. Several of these deserve explicit mention.

First is the question of trajectory versus static reading. Webb’s “redemptive movement hermeneutic” proposes that Scripture reveals a moral trajectory that the reader should follow beyond the text’s explicit statements.¹¹ Advocates of this approach draw an analogy to slavery and the status of women: the Bible regulates slavery without condemning it and restricts women’s roles without granting full equality, yet most Christians today reject slavery and affirm women’s equality by following what they perceive as the Bible’s trajectory. The question is whether a similar trajectory applies to same-sex relationships. Opponents argue that the slavery and gender analogies are flawed because the Bible contains internal tensions on those issues (e.g., Galatians 3:28), whereas the biblical witness on same-sex acts is uniformly negative.⁶¹⁸

Second is the weight given to the creation narratives. Traditional scholars treat Genesis 1–2 as establishing a normative paradigm of male-female union that governs all subsequent sexual ethics. Revisionist scholars respond that the creation accounts describe what is typical, not what is exclusively permissible, and note that Jesus invokes Genesis 2:24 specifically in the context of a question about divorce (Matthew 19:3–9), not about same-sex relations.³

Third is the issue of the Bible’s cultural situatedness. All interpreters acknowledge that the Bible was written in particular historical and cultural contexts, but they disagree profoundly about which elements are culturally contingent and which are transcultural and permanently binding. This is not a question unique to the homosexuality debate; it arises with equal force in discussions of women’s head coverings (1 Corinthians 11:2–16), the greeting kiss (Romans 16:16), and the permissibility of lending at interest (Deuteronomy 23:19). The principles used to evaluate cultural contingency in these other cases inevitably shape how one approaches the passages on same-sex conduct. For further discussion of these issues, see Difficult Passages.⁷¹³

The State of the Debate

As of the mid-2020s, the academic debate remains vigorous and unresolved. The two-views format—exemplified by Sprinkle’s Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church (2016)—has become a standard genre, reflecting the fact that scholars on both sides regard the other position as genuinely held by serious interpreters working in good faith.¹³

Several areas of genuine scholarly consensus have emerged even amid the disagreement. Most scholars on both sides agree that Genesis 19 is primarily about hospitality violation and sexual violence rather than consensual homosexuality.³⁶ Most agree that the meaning of arsenokoitai is genuinely uncertain and that any translation involves interpretive judgment.¹² Most agree that Paul in Romans 1 is drawing on Stoic natural-law reasoning and that his argument is embedded in the rhetorical structure of the letter’s opening.¹⁴ And most agree that the modern concept of sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient writers, even if they disagree about the implications of that fact.¹⁶

The disagreement is ultimately hermeneutical rather than purely exegetical. Scholars who share the same historical-critical methods and work with the same original languages can reach opposite conclusions because they bring different assumptions about the nature of biblical authority, the role of tradition, the relationship between the Testaments, and the degree to which modern knowledge (in this case, about sexual orientation) should inform interpretation.⁷¹⁷ The debate thus serves as a case study in how deeply prior commitments shape the reading of biblical texts—a dynamic that characterizes virtually every contested issue in the history of biblical interpretation.