What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality? An Honest Survey of the 6 Passages

This is one of the most contested questions in contemporary Christianity. How we answer it has enormous consequences — for LGBTQ people in and outside the church, for families, for pastoral practice, and for how the church reads its own scriptures.

This article surveys the biblical texts honestly. It does not pretend there's an easy answer. It does not start from a culture-war framework. It tries to do what good biblical study always requires: read the texts in their context, understand the range of scholarly interpretations, and be honest about what the Bible does and doesn't say.

The Six Passages

1. Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah

The traditional reading: God destroys Sodom for homosexuality.

What the text actually says: Men of the city demand that Lot hand over his male visitors (who are angels) so "we may know them" — which in context means sexual violence. Lot offers his daughters instead. The visitors blind the men. The city is destroyed.

The interpretive question: Does the sin of Sodom = homosexuality generally, or = violent gang rape of strangers?

What other biblical texts say about Sodom's sin:

• Ezekiel 16:49: "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
• Isaiah 1:10-17: Sodom's sin is identified as injustice
• Jude 7: "Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion"

Jude's language is the traditional basis for the homosexuality interpretation. But the violence and hospitality violation are at least as prominent in the narrative as any sexual dimension.

Conclusion: Genesis 19 is not primarily about consensual same-sex relationships. It depicts violent coercive gang rape. Using it as a proof text against same-sex relationships in general involves significant interpretive leap.

2. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13

"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (18:22)

"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (20:13)

The traditional reading: Clear prohibition on male same-sex intercourse, applicable to all people across all times.

The revisionist reading: These passages are part of Israel's holiness code — context-specific regulations for ancient Israel that were tied to:

• Maintaining distinctiveness from Canaanite religious practices (which included cultic male prostitution)
• Concerns about lineage, tribal identity, and "wasting seed"
• Israel's specific covenant regulations that are not binding on Gentile Christians (the adjacent text also prohibits fabric blends and mixing livestock breeds)

The traditional response: While the holiness code contains both ceremonial regulations (dietary laws, fabric prohibitions) and moral laws, the prohibitions on sexual ethics (including Lev 18-20's prohibitions on adultery, incest, bestiality, and same-sex intercourse) fall into the moral category — reaffirmed by the New Testament's own treatment of sexual ethics.

The honest assessment: The Leviticus passages clearly prohibit male same-sex intercourse. The question is whether this is a ceremonial regulation (like dietary laws) or a moral law (like prohibitions on adultery). The New Testament's silence on dietary laws combined with its clear treatment of sexual ethics provides the framework for most traditional interpreters to maintain that the Leviticus prohibitions remain in force even if the death penalty (like all Israelite civil law) does not.

3. Romans 1:24-27

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie... Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another."

The traditional reading: Paul condemns both male and female same-sex behavior as "against nature" — the most explicit condemnation in the New Testament.

The revisionist reading: Several arguments:

1. Paul may be describing the Greco-Roman world of excess and pagan religious practice — the "exchanged natural relations" may refer to people who were naturally heterosexual engaging in homosexual behavior, not to people with a same-sex orientation.
2. "Against nature" (para physin) in Paul's context may mean "against cultural convention" rather than "against biological design."
3. Paul may be describing exploitative or excessive same-sex behavior of his time, not loving committed relationships.

The traditional response: Paul's argument goes back to creation order (cf. Gen 1-2) — "natural" and "unnatural" refer to the creation design of male-female complementarity, not cultural convention. The Romans 1 passage is the most extensive treatment in Paul and covers both men and women — suggesting it's not specific to Roman excess.

Scholarly context: Romans 1:26-27 is the passage that traditional scholars cite most frequently as the clearest New Testament teaching against same-sex relationships. Revisionist scholars spend the most effort on this passage for the same reason.

4-5. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10

These lists include two Greek words that have generated significant debate: malakoi and arsenokoitai.

Malakoi (1 Cor 6:9): Literally "soft ones." Traditionally translated "effeminate" or "homosexual." More recently, scholars argue it refers to men who play the passive role in sex generally, not homosexuality specifically. It may refer to male prostitutes.

Arsenokoitai (1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10): A compound of arsēn (male) and koitē (bed). Paul may have coined this term from the Leviticus 18/20 passages (the Septuagint Greek uses arsenos koitēn). The traditional reading: men who bed men = same-sex male intercourse broadly. The revisionist reading: it refers to male prostitution or exploitative sexual relationships, not consensual same-sex relationships.

The honest assessment: The term arsenokoitai most naturally refers to male same-sex intercourse based on its probable derivation from Leviticus. The argument that it refers only to exploitative forms requires more interpretive work than the traditional reading.

What the Biblical Evidence Points Toward

What the texts clearly say:

• The creation narrative in Genesis 1-2 presents male-female complementarity as the designed pattern for marriage
• Leviticus 18 and 20 prohibit male same-sex intercourse
• Romans 1:26-27 describes same-sex behavior as contrary to nature and creation order
• The terms in 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 most likely include same-sex intercourse in their meaning

What the texts don't say:

• They don't address same-sex orientation as a stable identity (a modern concept)
• They don't address committed, faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships (as understood in the modern world)
• They don't speak to the pastoral care of LGBTQ people
• They don't say anything about same-sex relationships that would warrant the hostility or contempt some Christians have shown to LGBTQ people

The Two Main Christian Positions

Traditional/Historic: The Bible's consistent witness from Genesis to Paul is that sexual union is designed for male-female marriage. Same-sex sexual behavior is prohibited. This doesn't make same-sex attraction sinful in itself (it's a feature of fallen human experience like other forms of disordered desire), but sexual expression is reserved for one-man one-woman marriage. This is the historic position of Catholic, Orthodox, and most Protestant churches.

Revisionist/Progressive: The biblical passages, read in their cultural context, address specific ancient practices (violence, exploitation, idolatrous prostitution) rather than the phenomenon of committed same-sex love between people with a stable same-sex orientation. The creation narrative's male-female complementarity is the principle for heterosexual people; for gay Christians, same-sex marriage can be the appropriate expression of the same values. This position is held by many mainline Protestant scholars and churches.

What Both Positions Should Share

Whatever position Christians hold on this question, several things should be non-negotiable:

Dignity and welcome. LGBTQ people are made in the image of God, are loved by God, and deserve to be treated with the same dignity, respect, and welcome that anyone else receives in the church and in society.

No contempt. The history of the church's treatment of gay people includes contempt, violence, and cruelty that cannot be defended on any reading of Scripture. Wherever you land theologically, contempt for gay people is not a Christian option.

Pastoral care. LGBTQ people, including those in the church, deserve genuine pastoral care — not rejection, not pressure to change orientation (which doesn't work), and not silence.

Intellectual honesty. This is a genuine interpretive debate among serious, Scripture-faithful scholars. Pretending it's simple or that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong is intellectually dishonest and pastorally harmful.

The gay Christian who is celibate out of theological conviction deserves honor. The LGBTQ person who has left the church because of how they were treated deserves compassion and honest reckoning with what drove them away. Both things can be true at once.

Related: What Is the Gospel? | Red Flags of an Unhealthy Church