Homosexuality and the Bible [Study]

Few issues have sharply divided the modern church more than the question of LGBTQ+ identity and practice. On one side are evangelical theologians who contend that the biblical witness is consistent in defining marriage as the covenantal union of one man and one woman and in viewing same-sex sexual activity as a distortion of God's design.

On the other side are revisionist theologians who argue that the Bible's prohibitions on same-sex behavior are culturally specific and do not apply to faithful, monogamous same-sex relationships today. This study presents the exegetical, theological, and apologetic case for the evangelical perspective, while representing revisionist arguments and offering strong responses to the most common apologetic challenges.

It must be emphasized from the start that the evangelical stance is not based on hostility toward LGBTQ+ individuals. As Sam Allberry, a celibate pastor who experiences same-sex attraction, explains that by nature, humans are against God. But he loves us enough to take our place, cleanse us, make us complete, and unite us to himself. [1] The gospel invites everyone to repentance and discipleship, and the issue of homosexual behavior is addressed within that broader redemptive framework.

Outline

1.0 The Theological Background

2.0 The Biblical Perspective

3.0 The Revisionist Case

4.0 Seven Common Questions

5.0 Pastoral and Church Implications

1.0 The Theological Background

The current debate generally divides into two main groups.

1.1 Evangelicals (or "non-affirming" theologians)

This group believes that all biblical passages condemning homosexual behavior are clear and that this view is based on a creation theology that is universal and unchangeable.[2] Thus, "evangelical Christian faith organizations and Conservative Christian traditions adhere to the belief that LGBTQ practices are not in alignment with biblical teachings and, therefore, considered sinful and against God's intended design."[3] The evangelicals use the grammatical-historical method of biblical interpretation and aim to understand the biblical writer's original intended meaning as understood by the original audience, and they hold that the Bible consistently defines same-sex intercourse as sin, and that any attempt to see it differently does not do justice to the biblical text.[10]

1.2 Revisionists (or "affirming" theologians)

In contrast, Revisionists claim that the biblical texts refer only to exploitative, pederastic, or idolatry-fueled same-sex acts, not the loving, equal, and committed same-sex relationships that are well known in today’s culture, and that the Bible should be reinterpreted in light of today's culture. [4] They interpret the bible through the lens of modern categories of sexual orientation, arguing that since the ancient world had no concept of a fixed homosexual identity, the biblical prohibitions do not apply to what we now call "gay" persons.[9] .

The late New Testament scholar Richard B. Hays was for decades the leading evangelical voice on this issue. In 1996, he wrote that "marriage between man and woman is the normative form for human sexual fulfillment, and homosexuality is one among many tragic signs that we are a broken people, alienated from God's loving purpose."[7] Shortly before his death in 2024, Hays changed his position, co-authoring The Widening of God's Mercy (2024).

Reviewers of his changed position note that the book does not address the specific ethical questions regarding LGBTQ issues and instead focuses on the idea that mercy is the key to understanding Scripture.[8] The fact that this revision was met with both celebration and criticism illustrates that the debate turns primarily on methods of interpreting scripture, rather than on exactly what the original words mean. Thus, the meaning is understood differently depending on how one interprets it, rather than by seeking the author's original intent and the text's meaning.

We will first examine the key portions of Scripture that address the Biblical perspective using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation, and also evaluate the revisionist interpretation of the same texts.

2.0 The Biblical Perspective

There are six main passages in Scripture that address the issue of marriage and homosexuality.

Genesis 1–2: The Creation Foundation

The evangelical case starts with a positive goal, not restriction.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26–28).

Genesis 2:18–25 describes the creation of woman as a helper fit for the man, and concludes with the key statement:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24).

Based on the linguistic structure of Genesis 2:18–25, the biblical authors clearly present marriage as rooted in procreation and in physical and psychological complementarity. [12]

This creation narrative forms the basis of all later sexual ethics in Scripture. "From Genesis 1–2, the only proper place for sexual intimacy is between a man and a woman within marriage. From that original created design, there is a consistent rejection of all other forms of sexual intimacy, including homosexuality."[13] The complementarity of male and female in Genesis is not a cultural artifact; it is the ontological design upon which the entire biblical sexual ethic is built.[14]

Genesis 19 and the Sin of Sodom

The debate over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19 is another point of contention. Revisionist scholars, citing Ezekiel 16:49, argue that the city's main sins were pride and neglect of the poor.

And they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Gen. 19:5

They read the demand to "know" (Heb. yāḏaʿ) the angels as indicating gang rape as a form of social violence, rather than consensual homosexual desire.[15]

Evangelical scholars acknowledge the gang-rape aspect but argue that it does not fully convey the passage's meaning. Christian interpretation has traditionally emphasized the apparently homoerotic elements of the Sodomites' request when they demand to "know" the angels. Early Jewish and Christian writings have consistently viewed this sin as involving sexual perversion.[16]

Significantly, this is what Jude says:

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 7.)

Jude, therefore, supports this interpretation, and the language that he uses to describe Sodom and Gomorrah echoes Paul's words in Romans 1. The evangelical perspective is not based solely on Genesis 19; it is part of a broader biblical case.[17]

Leviticus 18:22

The Holiness Code in Leviticus explicitly states:

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

Revisionist scholars contend that the Hebrew phrase miškəbê ʾiššâ ("lying-downs of a woman") is ambiguous and might specifically refer to certain male sexual acts. The “male acts” they propose are usually: male‑on‑male rape/incest, sex with a married man, simultaneous male intercourse with a woman, or intercourse with an intersex person. They claim this verse is not talking about a blanket ban on all male‑same‑sex relationships

The evangelical response, developed through grammatical-historical analysis, is that this revisionist interpretation imposes an "extremely narrow and historically unattested interpretation" on the text.[18] The prohibition uses broad language describing a man lying with a male as with a woman, which, in the context of Leviticus 18, is with a series of prohibitions (incest, adultery, bestiality), clearly refers to male-to-male sexual intercourse as a category, not just particular forms of it.[19]

In addition, the fact that Paul's term in 1 Corinthians 6:9 (arsenokoitai) is directly taken from the Septuagint (LXX) translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, which use the same Greek root words (arsen + koitē), allows no lexical room to limit Paul's prohibition to pederasty or exploitation alone,[20] and should be seen as referring to homosexuality in general. It also shows that the early church saw these laws as morally binding, not just ceremonial or culturally specific.[21]

Jesus and Marriage (Matthew 19:4–6)

A common revisionist argument is that Jesus never talked about homosexuality. The evangelical counterpoint is that Jesus did discuss the structure of marriage, which naturally rules out same-sex sexual unions. In Matthew 19:4–6, when the Pharisees asked about divorce, Jesus answered:

"Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate".

Jesus references both Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, clearly establishing marriage as based on male-female complementarity and presenting it as a positive, cross-cultural norm rooted in creation rather than in Mosaic law.[21] Along with Genesis 1–2 and Paul's discussion in Romans 1, this creates an "Inherent Design Model" for evangelical sexual ethics.[22] The revisionist argument that Jesus' silence on homosexuality implies permissiveness overlooks the fact that his explicit affirmation of creation-order marriage addresses the issue in a foundational way.

Romans 1:18–32

The key passage in New Testament ethics on this topic is Romans 1:18–32, where Paul places homosexual behavior within a theological context. It shows humanity's idolatrous rejection of God and highlights God's judicial act of "giving over" rebellious humanity to its disordered desires.[23]

"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error" (Rom. 1:26–27).

Thus, these texts are unambiguously critical of same-sex activities.

However, the revisionists make the following claims [24], and evangelical scholars rebut each of them. [25] [26]

a. This passage is part of a larger argument about Gentile rebellion and false worship, so same-sex acts appear as one example of pagan disorder rather than the main subject of the passage. Evangelicals note that Paul’s language in Romans 1 directly describes same-sex intercourse as “against nature,” and the text gives no signal that only idolatrous or pagan settings are in view.

b. Paul condemns uncontrolled passion, excess, and self-indulgence rather than mutual, covenantal same-sex unions. Evangelicals show that nowhere does the passage limit itself to abusive or lust-driven acts; Paul presents same-sex relations themselves as part of humanity’s moral disorder.

c. Paul assumes people with heterosexual desires are engaging in same-sex acts “against nature,” rather than discussing people with a stable homosexual orientation. Evangelicals state that Paul is not making a claim that depends on modern categories of orientation; his concern is the act itself and its relation to the creation order.

d. “Contrary to nature" (para physin) refers to what was considered contrary to custom or convention, not a timeless moral rule. Evangelicals counter that in Romans 1, the phrase carries a deeper moral force, rooted in Paul’s creation-based reasoning rather than mere social convention.

e. Paul is criticizing exploitative forms of same-sex behavior like pederasty, prostitution, or temple sex, not modern egalitarian same-sex relationships. Evangelicals answer that Paul includes both men and women and speaks broadly enough to encompass same-sex acts as such, not only exploitative varieties.

1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9–11)

Paul lists among those who will not inherit the kingdom of God both the malakoi and arsenokoitai (1 Cor. 6:9–10: "men who practice homosexuality"). Malakoi should be understood as the recipient, the passive person involved in homosexual intercourse. Arsenokoitai, on the other hand, refers to the active male in the act. Therefore, Paul is not merely addressing the reprehensible practice of pederasty, but also about two adult males who have consensually engaged in sexual activity. [28] The same word arsenokoitai appears in 1 Timothy 1:10, embedded in a list of sins explicitly linked to violations of the Decalogue, confirming its moral, rather than merely ritual significance.[29]

The revisionist effort to restrict the term "arsenokoitai" to economic exploitation has been widely rejected in academic circles.[30] The pairing of these two terms, malakoi and arsenokoitai, is correctly understood to refer to all types of same-sex intercourse. [31] The passage ends with the gospel promise:

"And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. 6:11).

This is an encouraging affirmation that the transforming power of the gospel reaches those who have engaged in same-sex acts.

3.0 The Revisionist Case

3.1 The Six Arguments of Revisionist Theology

Revisionist or "affirming" theology, as systematically argued by Matthew Vines in God and the Gay Christian (Convergent, 2014), rests on six major pillars:[32]

1. The "bad fruit" argument: The traditional Christian teaching on homosexuality has caused shame, self-hatred, and suicide among gay Christians. Jesus said good trees produce good fruit (Matt. 7:15–20); therefore, the traditional teaching must be wrong.

2. The orientation argument: The ancient world did not recognize a fixed homosexual orientation. Paul was likely condemning "sexual excess" among naturally heterosexual people, not the experiences of gay individuals as we understand them today.

3. The exploitation argument: The Bible only discusses exploitative, coercive, or idolatrous forms of same-sex behavior, not the loving, equal relationships of today.

4. The Sodom-as-hospitality argument: Sodom was destroyed due to pride and inhospitality, not because of homosexuality.

5. The Leviticus-as-ceremonial argument: The Levitical prohibitions belong to the Holiness Code's ceremonial regulations and are no more binding than the prohibitions on shellfish or mixed fabrics.

6. The arsenokoitai-as-ambiguous argument: The Greek word is rare enough that its meaning cannot be fixed with certainty to all same-sex behavior.

3.2 Evangelical Responses to (Some) Revisionist Arguments

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's published response, God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines (SBTS Press, 2014), edited by R. Albert Mohler Jr., addresses these arguments thoroughly.[33] Its central contention is that Vines' "main argument is that the Bible simply has no category of sexual orientation. Thus, when the Bible condemns same-sex acts, it is actually condemning 'sexual excess'"—a claim that "would include misleading people about their sin and about their need for Christ."[34]

Regarding the bad fruit argument, critics contend that Vines relies on the church's pastoral failures, which are real and regrettable, to interpret biblical meaning, a move that constitutes a logical fallacy.[35] His unstated assumption is that his belief that the 'bad fruit' of those who cannot affirm same-sex relationships must indicate bad theology. He then attempts every possible way to prevent any biblical text from stating what he has already decided it does not say.[36]

Regarding the orientation argument, Paul's condemnation does not rely on the assumption of free choice.[37] Moreover, the ancient Greco-Roman world recognized the concept of individuals with exclusive and persistent same-sex desires; both Plato's Symposium and Aristophanes' speech describe precisely this, indicating that Paul was aware of what we refer to as orientation.[38]

Regarding the Leviticus-as-ceremonial argument, the main distinction is between the civil and ceremonial laws of Israel (which are no longer in effect because of Christ) and the moral laws, which are grounded in the creation order. The Levitical ban on same-sex relations is structurally similar to bans on incest and adultery in the same chapter (Lev. 18), all of which the New Testament confirms as morally binding. Additionally, Paul's derivation of arsenokoitai from these specific Levitical texts shows he viewed them as morally normative for the church.[39]

4.0 Seven Common Questions

4.1 "The Bible Has Only Six Verses on Homosexuality—Surely That's Not Enough to Build a Whole Ethic On."

The Objection: With only six passages, the Bible's treatment of homosexuality is too sparse to be decisive.

The Response: The argument from numerical frequency is a logical fallacy. The Bible contains only one direct statement about child sacrifice (Lev. 18:21), but no one interprets this as making child sacrifice ambiguous. More importantly, the claim of "six verses" ignores the positive biblical theology of sexuality. The sexual ethic concerning homosexuality stems from the Bible's overarching teaching on sexuality, found in Genesis 1–2, reinforced by Jesus in Matthew 19, and by Paul's theology of the body in 1 Corinthians 6–7 and Ephesians 5.[40] The evangelical stance affirms that every single text addressing homosexual practice in both Testaments is negative in its assessment, and this consistent witness is rooted in a positive theology of creation.[41] In both the Old and New Testaments, the texts are clearly and consistently negative in their judgment of same-sex practice.

4.2: "Jesus Never Mentioned Homosexuality."

The Objection: Because Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality, Christians should not place it at the center of the moral debate.

The Response: This argument proves too much. Jesus also never explicitly condemned child abuse, incest, or chattel slavery, yet no one concludes from this that these practices are acceptable. More importantly, Jesus did address the normative structure of human sexuality. In Matthew 19:4–6, he clearly based marriage on the male-female creation order from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and used it as the exclusive context for sexual "one flesh" union.[42] Additionally, the evangelical view holds that all Scripture is "God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16), and the teachings of the apostles carry the authority of Christ himself (John 14:26; 16:13).[43] The New Testament explicitly condemns same-sex behavior in Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9–10, and 1 Timothy 1:10. Using Jesus' silence as proof of approval is an argument from silence, which is a weak one when Jesus explicitly endorsed the creation-order framework.[44]

4.3: "People Are Born Gay—It's Natural, So How Can It Be Wrong?"

The Objection: Because same-sex attraction appears to be innate and unchosen, it cannot be morally culpable. God would not condemn people for how they were made.

The Response: This argument is based on a philosophical mistake: the naturalistic fallacy—the idea that "natural" or "innate" automatically means "morally good." Same-sex attraction should be considered alongside other innate sinful tendencies, such as congenital inclinations toward anger, pride, or anxiety.[45] Biblical teaching holds that the Fall has thoroughly corrupted human nature, rendering our desires inherently disordered. Paul's logic in Romans 1 is that homosexual desire is a sign of humanity's fallen, God-rejecting state, not something that is freely chosen.[46]

Paul's condemnation of homosexual activity does not rely on the assumption that it is freely chosen. There is a significant difference between Paul's view and the modern tendency to assign blame only for actions believed to be under the individual's control.[47] Heterosexuals do not choose their susceptibility to fornication or adultery, but that does not make those acts morally neutral. Interestingly, the evangelical goal is not to become heterosexual but to practice chastity and maintain a holy sexuality in singleness or faithfulness in marriage, which is the calling of all Christians regardless of their attractions.[48]

Furthermore, science has not conclusively identified a genetic cause for homosexuality. Even if a genetic predisposition were confirmed, it would not automatically make same-sex behavior morally neutral any more than a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism makes drunkenness morally acceptable.[49]

4.4: "The Bible's Prohibition Only Addressed Exploitative or Pederastic Homosexuality"

The Objection: Paul and the Levitical authors only knew of exploitative, pederastic, idol-cult, or lust-driven same-sex acts. They could not have intended to condemn the loving, committed same-sex partnerships of today.

The Response: This is the most advanced revisionist argument, and it calls for a careful exegetical reply. Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice (2001) extensively shows that the ancient world, including the Greco-Roman and Jewish settings in which Paul wrote, contained examples of long-term, relatively equal same-sex partnerships, as seen in Plato's Symposium and in Roman legal and literary sources.[50] Paul's language in Romans 1:26–27 refers to same-sex intercourse in general (arsen, "male"; thēlys, "female"), not a specific subset. The terms para physin ("contrary to nature") and atimia ("dishonor") describe all same-sex intercourse as deviating from the male-female pattern given in creation.[51]

Sprinkle examines six major revisionist interpretations of Romans 1 and concludes that the claim Paul only addressed "straight people having homosexual sex" or "only impure (not sinful)" acts does not hold up under scrutiny.[52] The broader argument that the category of orientation was unknown to Paul also fails to support the revisionist view, because Paul condemns the acts themselves, which are the same regardless of the relational context in which they occur.[53]

4.5: "A God of Love Would Not Deny Gay People the Fulfillment of Love and Marriage."

The Objection: A loving God who created humans with same-sex attraction would not then deny them the very love and intimacy they need. The traditional position is therefore incompatible with God's character.

The Response: This objection assumes that "romantic fulfillment and sexual self-expression are such fundamentals that anything infringing on them is deeply harmful."[54] This is a cultural assumption, not a biblical one. Jesus himself was celibate and yet "the most fully human and complete person who ever lived."[55] The evangelical position does not deny that same-sex attracted persons can love. It encourages them, as it does all single Christians, to find their deepest fulfillment in Christ, in close friendships, and in the church community.[56]

Wesley Hill, in Washed and Waiting (Zondervan, 2010), writes personally as a gay, celibate Christian: "Homosexuality was not God's original creative intention for humanity … homosexual practice goes against God's express will for all human beings, especially those who trust in Christ."[57] His testimony is not one of despair but of costly and hope-filled obedience. He argues that the celibate gay Christian vocation must be "dignified and heralded as … a venerable vocation that has ancient scriptural, patristic, and indeed evangelical roots."[58] The question is not whether God is withholding good from gay persons, but whether Christians trust that God's design in creation and redemption is itself the highest good.

4.6: "Christians Are on the Wrong Side of History—This Is Like Slavery or Interracial Marriage."

The Objection: The church's opposition to slavery and racial segregation was once defended biblically, but Christians changed their minds as culture changed. The same should happen with homosexuality.

The Response: The analogy breaks down at a crucial point. The arguments against slavery and racial segregation were based on biblical principles—highlighting the creation of all humans in God's image (Gen. 1:26–28), the universality of the gospel (Gal. 3:28), and the redemptive path of Scripture. There was no consistent hermeneutic in the pro-slavery biblical argument; the Bible never explicitly endorsed racial hierarchy. In contrast, the definition of marriage as a male-female union is clearly established in Genesis 2, reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19, and supports Paul's theology of the body in Ephesians 5.[59]

Gagnon discusses the analogy to slavery, divorce/remarriage, and women's roles extensively, arguing that none of these serve as true analogies because they don't involve a positive, universally accepted creation norm like male-female marriage.[60] The "arc of history" argument is a type of sociological pressure in which an appeal is made to cultural consensus as a theological standard. But it is unlikely that the church has been misinterpreting scripture for 2000 years and now suddenly needs to be awakened to this truth.[61] The consistent stance of the historic Christian tradition, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, or Evangelical, on this issue stands as a significant testimony.[62]

4.7: "Why Should My Sexual Identity Be Defined by the Church Rather Than by Who I Am?"

The Objection: Sexual identity is personal and fundamental. The church has no right to tell someone who they are at the deepest level.

The Response: This objection echoes the modern, post-Freudian belief that sexuality is at the heart of personal identity. The evangelical response, strongly expressed by Rosaria Butterfield (a former lesbian professor who converted to Reformed Christianity), is that this belief is a recent cultural development, not an everlasting truth.[63] Butterfield cautions against three unbiblical views:

the "Freudian position" (that same-sex attraction is a morally neutral, fixed identity),

the "revisionist heresy" (that the Bible allows monogamous same-sex relationships), and

the "reparative therapy heresy" (that the primary goal of Christian ministry is to produce heterosexual attraction).[64]

The evangelical stance is obvious:

"Describing myself [as experiencing same-sex attraction rather than 'gay'] is a way for me to recognize that the kind of sexual attractions I experience are not fundamental to my identity. They are part of what I feel but they are not who I am in a fundamental sense."[65]

Christian identity is grounded in union with Christ (Gal. 2:20; 2 Cor. 5:17), not in sexual desires. Yuan explains this through his idea of "holy sexuality": the goal isn't heterosexuality but Christlikeness—"chastity in singleness or faithfulness in marriage" for all.[66]

5.0 Pastoral and Church Implications

5.1 A Costly but Real Calling

The evangelical stance does not offer an easy pastoral journey. For those experiencing same-sex attraction and committed to biblical obedience, the likely path is lifelong celibacy. This choice comes with its own costs. "Some deep-seated and God-given desires will never be fulfilled. These include the longing that everyone has to be mutually desired and the search for a covenantal union with someone else."[67] It is a common cultural notion that celibacy cannot coexist with a fulfilling life. The call to celibacy is not just a challenging way to manage life; instead, it reflects the example of Jesus and Paul and represents a positive calling to a greater purpose. [See More on Celibacy]

5.2 The Church's Responsibility

The church's historical failure has been to treat homosexuality as a problem to be solved rather than as a matter of humans who need to give and receive love. The church has unintentionally driven homosexual people away from Jesus.[68] The evangelical position firmly upholds biblical sexual ethics, but it also calls the church to build communities that are "deeply warm, gracious, friendly, mutually accountable, humble, and forgiving"—not as a concession to revisionist views, but as a requirement of the gospel itself.[69]

The pastoral accommodation of same-sex relationships, allowing them in church membership while stopping short of endorsing marriage, indicates a move toward greater openness that lacks biblical support.[70] The church must strike a balance between truth and grace without letting one overpower the other.

5.3 The Gospel Word

The ultimate response to LGBTQ+ individuals—and to everyone—is the gospel itself. As Rosaria Butterfield asserts, "The worst sin [in your gay and lesbian neighbor's life] is not sexuality. … The worst sin is unbelief."[71] And the gospel is the proclamation that "you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 6:11). The church must communicate this message with both the clarity that truth requires and the compassion that love demands.

The evangelical stance on LGBTQ+ practices is not a cultural bias justified retroactively through proof-texting. Instead, it is a consistent, exegetically based theological viewpoint rooted in the positive theology of creation in Genesis 1–2, affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19, expressed by Paul in Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1, and supported by the nearly unanimous tradition of Christianity for over two thousand years.[72] The revisionist argument that Paul only condemned exploitative homosexuality or that the Bible's categories do not correspond to modern same-sex relationships has undergone extensive scholarly examination and has been found lacking.[73]

At the same time, the evangelical church must affirm the truth it believes in with compassionate pastoral care. The call to celibacy is challenging. The temptation to shame and marginalize gay individuals is strong and must be confronted. The declaration of the gospel—that there is forgiveness, transformation, and acceptance in Christ for everyone—must be spoken openly and lovingly to every person, regardless of their sexual history or attractions.

All Scripture quotations are taken from the English Standard Version, The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), unless otherwise noted.

Notes

1. Sam Allberry, Is God Anti-Gay? And Other Questions about Jesus, the Bible, and Same-Sex Sexuality, rev. ed. (Epsom: The Good Book Company, 2023), 40.

2. Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2001), 37–40.

3. Japheth Kigen, "Christ and the Science of Gender and Human Sexuality: The Practice of LGBTQ in Critical Study," Edition Consortium Journal of Philosophy, Religion and Theological Studies 4, no. 1 (February 2024): 29.

4. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 37.

5. Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian: The Biblical Case in Support of Same-Sex Relationships (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), 26–28.

6. Kigen, "The Practice of LGBTQ," 30.

7. N. T. Wright, quoted in Caleb M. Day, review of The Widening of God's Mercy: Sexuality Within the Biblical Story, by Christopher B. Hays and Richard B. Hays, Theology & Sexuality (March 2025): 2, https://doi.org/10.1177/09539468251323521.

8. Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 30–35.

9. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (San Francisco: HarperOne, 1996), 390.

10. Day, review of The Widening of God's Mercy, 3–4.

11. Foday Sellu and Arve Sayfulty Sivili Sr., "The Creation Account and Same-Sex Marriage," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Sciences 7 (August 2024): 2892.

12. Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality? (Wheaton: Crossway, 2015), 32.

13. Image and Order: God's Design for Men and Women," The Gospel Coalition Australia, October 16, 2019, https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/image-order-gods-design-men-women/.

14. The Reformation Project, "Was Homosexuality the Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?" accessed March 2026, https://reformationproject.org/was-homosexuality-the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah/.

15. Roy Ciampa, "The Ancient Pedigree of Homosexuality as the Sin of Sodom," Themelios 49, no. 1 (April 2024): 1–10, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the-ancient-pedigree-of-homosexuality-as-the-sin-of-sodom/.

16. DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?, 43–47.

17. Mark Wayne Christopher, "A Grammatical-Historical Critique of the Pro-Gay Hermeneutic in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13" (MTh thesis, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2016), 28–35.

18. Christopher, "A Grammatical-Historical Critique," 34.

19. Family Research Council, "Does 1 Corinthians 6:9 Really Condemn Homosexual Sex?" FRC Blog, August 3, 2021, citing Gagnon, Bible and Homosexual Practice, 312, https://www.frc.org/blog/2021/08/does-1-corinthians-69-really-condemn-homosexual-sex.

20. Christopher, "A Grammatical-Historical Critique," 40–42.

21. Christian Research Institute, "Is Arsenokoitai Really That Mysterious?" Equip, accessed March 2026, https://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious/.

22. "Homosexuality Revisited: Responding to Common Affirming Arguments," Modern Reformation, accessed March 2026, https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/essays/homosexuality-revisited-responding-to-common-affirming-arguments.

23. Chris Cone, "Addressing LGBTQ—Biblical Perspective on Identity, Sex, and Sexuality," Bible Faculty Summit (2019), 3, https://biblefacultysummit.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ConeChrisAddressingLGBTQ.pdf.

24. Jeremy Punt, “Romans 1:18–32 amidst the Gay-Debate: Interpretative Options,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 63, no. 3 (2007): 965–977.

25. Richard B. Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” Journal of Religious Ethics 14, no. 1 (Spring 1986): 184–215.

26. Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), Romans 1:26–27; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, 2nd ed., BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), Romans 1:24–27.

27. Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 74–82.

28. Preston Sprinkle, People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality Is Not Just an Issue (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2015), 82.

29. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 312, cited in Family Research Council, "Does 1 Corinthians 6:9 Really Condemn Homosexual Sex?"

30. Gospel Reformation Network, "Paul's Understanding of Sexuality: Malakoi and Arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians 6:9," accessed March 2026, https://gospelreformation.net/pauls-understanding-of-sexuality/.

31. Christian Research Institute, "Is Arsenokoitai Really That Mysterious?"

32. Vines, God and the Gay Christian, 12–16.

33. R. Albert Mohler Jr., ed., God and the Gay Christian? A Response to Matthew Vines (Louisville: SBTS Press, 2014), 5–10.

34. Ibid., 14.

35. Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, "Review of God and the Gay Christian," October 11, 2021, https://dbts.edu/2021/10/11/review-of-god-and-the-gay-christian/.

36. Collin Hansen, review of God and the Gay Christian, by Matthew Vines, The Gospel Coalition, accessed March 2026, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/god-gay-christian/.

37. Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans 1," Journal of Religious Ethics 14, no. 1 (1986): 209.

38. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 347–61.

39. Christian Research Institute, "Is Arsenokoitai Really That Mysterious?"; Christopher, "A Grammatical-Historical Critique," 40.

40. DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 32–35.

41. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 37.

42. "Homosexuality Revisited," Modern Reformation.

43. DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 15–16.

44. Cone, "Addressing LGBTQ," 3–4.

45. Denny Burk, "Is Homosexual Orientation Sinful?" Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 58, no. 1 (March 2015): 95.

46. Hays, Moral Vision of the New Testament, 387–88.

47. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural," 209.

48. Christopher Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel: Sex, Desire, and Relationships Shaped by God's Grand Story (Colorado Springs: Multnomah, 2018), 39.

49. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 395–400.

50. Ibid., 347–61.

51. Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 74–82.

52. Ibid., 82.

53. Mohler, God and the Gay Christian? A Response, 22.

54. Allberry, Is God Anti-Gay?, 24.

55. Stand to Reason, "Sexuality, Identity, Sin, and Denying Ourselves to Follow Christ," accessed March 2026, https://www.str.org/w/sexuality-identity-sin-and-denying-ourselves-to-follow-christ.

56. Wesley Hill, Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 52.

57. Ibid., 53.

58. Wesley Hill, "Washed and Still Waiting: An Evangelical Approach to Homosexuality," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59, no. 2 (2016): 336.

59. DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach?, 100–106.

60. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 441–46.

61. R. Albert Mohler Jr., "Mohler, Colleagues Publish E-Book Refuting 'God and the Gay Christian,'" Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2014, https://www.sbts.edu/news/mohler-colleagues-publish-e-book-refuting-new-book-god-and-the-gay-christian/.

62. Preston Sprinkle, ed., Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016), 12–13.

63. Rosaria Butterfield, The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert: An English Professor's Journey into Christian Faith (Pittsburgh: Crown & Covenant, 2012), 22–28.

64. Rosaria Butterfield, "After Wheaton: Three Unbiblical Positions on Christianity and Homosexuality," The Gospel Coalition, October 29, 2017, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/rosaria-butterfield-after-wheaton-three-unbiblical-positions-on-christian/.

65. Allberry, Is God Anti-Gay?, 17.

66. Yuan, Holy Sexuality and the Gospel, 39.

67. Hill, Washed and Waiting, 75.

68. Sprinkle, People to Be Loved, 13, 15.

69. Kigen, "The Practice of LGBTQ," 35.

70. Charles Lee Irons, "Pastoral Accommodation of Same-Sex Relationships: A Critique in Light of 1 Corinthians 5–6," Eikon 4, no. 1 (Spring 2022): 1, https://cbmw.org/2022/05/23/pastoral-accommodation-of-same-sex-relationships-a-critique-in-light-of-1-corinthians-5-6/.

71. Rosaria Butterfield, quoted in "'We Are All Messy': Rosaria Butterfield on Loving Our Gay and Lesbian Friends," The Gospel Coalition, July 10, 2019, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/video/we-are-all-messy-rosaria-butterfield-on-loving-our-gay-and-lesbian-friends/.

72. Sprinkle, Two Views on Homosexuality, 12–14.

73. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 37; Mohler, God and the Gay Christian? A Response, 14; Hansen, review of God and the Gay Christian.