Unit 3 FD A
85
10
ABANDONING NATURAL RELATIONS:
The Biblical Verdict on Homosexuality
In previous chapters we surveyed the Creator’s plan for marriage and the family, observed the integrated nature of God’s design for these institutions, and traced various perversions of the biblical model in the history of Israel. One of the most serious distortions of God’s plan for marriage and the family, it was noted, is homosexuality. This sin was a persistent problem in ancient Israel (e.g., Sodom and Gomorrah, the Gibeonites during the time of the judges, the recurring appearance of homosexuals during the reign of ungodly kings), was manifest in the New Testament world (Rom. 1:24-28; 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-10), and continues to be a challenge in twenty-first-century society.
As was noted in the opening chapter, homosexuality is an increasing phenomenon in contemporary culture. The move toward the official acceptance of homosexuality in modern American society started in 1973, when the American Psychological Association removed homosexuality from its list of psychological diseases in the . In theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 1
wake of this decision, homosexuality has gradually gained ground in secular culture to the extent that currently several states are moving toward the recognition of same-sex marriages or “civil unions.” This trend is cause for concern given that throughout history even non-Christian societies have typically rejected homosexuality.2
Not only is secular culture increasingly embracing homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, but even many in the and inchurch published academic works on the subject written by biblical scholars are softening their stance. Some pastors have revealed their3
homosexual orientation, many of the mainline denominations are vigorously discussing the moral legitimacy of homosexuality, and at least one denomination has elected a practicing homosexual as one of its leaders. Even some of the more conservative evangelical4
groups are faced with issues related to homosexuality on the local church level. In some cases, they have excluded5
homosexual-endorsing churches from their fellowships. In other instances, they have produced official statements dealing with this issue.
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE INTEGRATED NATURE OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY
When compared with the pattern of marriage and the family set forth in the opening chapters of Genesis, homosexuality fallsbiblical short on numerous fronts. First, as the antithesis of , homosexuality is at odds with God’s design for marriage and the6 heterosexuality family at its most foundational level. This is made clear by the words of Genesis 2:24, which conceive of marriage in heterosexual rather than homosexual terms: “A [masculine] shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his [feminine], and theyman wife [the man and the woman] shall become one flesh.”7
A second component of the biblical model of marriage that homosexuality violates is its nature. According tocomplementary 8
Genesis 2 and 3—where the man is given charge of his wife, while the woman is placed alongside him as his “suitable helper”—differences in gender role are an essential part of the Creator’s design for marriage. These roles were assigned by God at creation (Gen. 2:18, 20) and were reaffirmed both after the fall (Gen. 3:16-19) and in New Testament teaching (Eph.
5:22-33; 1 Pet. 3:1-7). Since these marital roles are tied inherently and unalterably to gender, same-sex partners cannot participate in this aspect of biblical marriage.9
A third integrated component of God’s design for marriage and the family that homosexuality does not fulfill is the duty to . As mentioned, procreation is a central element of marriage and undeniably part of the Creator’s plan for this vital socialprocreate 10
institution. This can be seen in the very first commandment ever given by God to the human couple, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen. 1:28). By nature, however, homosexuality falls short of this essential component of the biblical/traditional model of11
marriage and the family, since it precludes reproduction.12
Not only does homosexuality fall short of the biblical pattern of marriage with regard to , , and heterosexuality complementarity , homosexual couples also often do not uphold other aspects of biblical marriage such as , , and .fertility monogamy fidelity durability 13
The extent of homosexuality’s departure from the biblical model of marriage and the family may be one of the reasons why this sin is so severely chastised in Scripture. Indeed, homosexuality does not merely misrepresent or misunderstand God’s design for marriage and the family at just point; it rather skews the Creator’s model at point.one almost every 14
Not surprisingly, therefore, severe punishment is both stipulated for and experienced by homosexual offenders in Scripture. When
2 0 1 0 . C r o s s w a y .
A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .
EBSCO Publishing: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY 630791; Andreas J. Kstenberger, David W. Jones; God, Marriage, and Family (Second Edition) : Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation Account:ehost.
86
writing to the Romans, Paul lists homosexuality as one of the undesirable moral consequences of the sin of rejecting God. Not only does Paul reiterate the Old Testament teaching that homosexuality is wrong, but he also notes that homosexuality is so “contrary to nature” (Rom. 1:26) that its participants cannot help but be aware of the fact that their actions are incompatible with the Creator’s design for marriage and the family and that this willful rebellion against God renders them ultimately deserving of death.15
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE OLD TESTAMENT16
While Scripture alludes or explicitly refers to homosexuality at least two dozen times, the three main sections of Scripture dealing17
with homosexuality are the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18-19, the sexual laws of the Holiness Code in Leviticus 18 and 20, and the apostle Paul’s remarks on homosexuality in his letter to the Romans and in his first letters to the Corinthians and to Timothy. As will be seen, each of these biblical passages clearly condemns homosexuality, and it is only by a radical reinterpretation that the scriptural message regarding homosexuality is turned into a positive and accepting stance toward this practice.18
Sodom and Gomorrah The account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:17- 19:29) is probably the best-known episode in Scripture revealing God’s opposition to homosexuality. The account is particularly significant for at least the following three reasons: (1) it is both the first and the most detailed account of God’s confrontation of homosexuality; (2) it is the only pre-Mosaic mention of homosexuality in Scripture; and (3) the sin and destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah are frequently cited in Scripture — often clearly in the context of19
sexual sin—and the account of the Israelite civil war with the tribe of Benjamin, sparked by the homosexual sin of the Gibeonites (Judges 19-21), seems to be structured in such a way as to parallel the events that transpired at Sodom and Gomorrah. It is therefore no wonder that homosexual advocates have devoted considerable attention to this account, for if they can convincingly demonstrate that the transgression that precipitated the ruin of these two cities was not homosexuality, they will have overturned a very important portion of the biblical witness against it.20
In the attempt to revise the traditional understanding of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, two major new interpretations have been proposed. First, some scholars have suggested that the sin that led to the ruin of these two cities was not homosexuality but rather gang
. Although Walter Barnett was not the first to offer this interpretation, he has been arguably the most influential proponent of thisrape view. In his short yet widely circulated booklet , Barnett writes, “The sin of SodomHomosexuality and the Bible: An Interpretation does not necessarily lie in homosexuality or homosexual behavior. Rather, this wicked thing that Lot enjoins the townspeople not to do is rape, pure and simple, and gang rape at that.” Barnett believes that this event, along with the companion account of the Israelite21
civil war with the Benjamites over the sexual sin of the Gibeonites, may not even have entailed gang rape but rather homosexual gang rape. He asserts, “Even if the original intent of both the townsmen of Sodom and Gibeah was homosexual rape,heterosexual
obviously both stories are about heterosexual males who indulge in it as sport.”22
Barnett’s view has been very influential and appears in the writings of many other pro-homosexual writers. For example, this interpretation is found in the volume by Letha Scanzoni and VirginiaIs the Homosexual My Neighbor? Another Christian View, Ramey Mollenkott, who contend, “The Sodom story seems to be focusing on . . . violent gang rape . . . . Violence—forcing sexual activity upon another—is the real point of the story. To put it another way: even if the angels had taken on the form of women for their earthly visitation, the desire of the men of Sodom to rape them would have been every bit as evil in the sight of God.” This23
interpretation, then, teaches that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah not because of homosexuality per se, but because of gang rape. In response, the element of truth in this view should be plainly acknowledged in that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah did indeed
involve the . These interpreters err, however, in attempting to limit the transgression of these two cities tointent to rape exclusively gang rape and in trying to redefine the intended sin as a form of heterosexual-oriented rape. Indeed, identifying the sin that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as heterosexual rape seems tenuous at best in light of Jude’s statement that the inhabitants of “Sodom and Gomorrah . . . indulged in sexual immorality and . . . ” (Jude 6-8; cf. 2 Pet.pursued unnatural desire defil[ing] the flesh 2:4-10). In other words, the offenders at Sodom and Gomorrah did not just have sexual desires, but sexualuncontrollable unnatural desires. Moreover, limiting the definition of the sin of these two cities exclusively to gang rape—be it heterosexual or homosexual—seems problematic in light of the fact that the intended rape never actually occurred. Yet God still destroyed both Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, if the sin of the men gathered around Lot’s house is identified as, and limited to, gang rape, God turns out to be unjust, since he destroyed Sodom (both men and women!) for a sin they never actually committed, and killed the inhabitants of Gomorrah for a sin in which they had no part whatsoever, not even unintentionally. For these reasons, this interpretation of the sin that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is highly implausible.
A second, even more influential, attempt at revising the traditional understanding of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah holds that it was not homosexuality, but rather . Doubtless the most influential proponent of this view has been D. Sherwin Bailey,inhospitality who is widely recognized as the first scholar to have suggested this interpretation, in his landmark study Homosexuality and the
. In short, this view rests upon the definition of the Hebrew word which is translated as “know” inWestern Christian Tradition y da’ Genesis 19:5. According to this interpretation, since in the vast majority of the 943 uses of this word in the Old Testament it means “to get acquainted with,” this ought to be its connotation in the account of Sodom and Gomorrah. Therefore, when the men of Sodom surrounded Lot’s house and inquired, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may them”know
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
87
(Gen. 19:5), they were simply asking to be to the angelic visitors on account of the fact that Lot had failed to acquaint themintroduced properly with the townspeople. Or, in the words of Bailey, “Since commonly means ‘get acquainted with,’ the demand toy da’ ‘know’ the visitors whom Lot had entertained may well have implied some serious breach of the rules of hospitality.”24
This interpretation has been adopted and repeated by almost every pro-homosexual Bible exegete who has dealt with this passage. Harry A. Woggon wrote, “The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was seen in the Old Testament to be a violation of the sacred obligation of hospitality toward strangers.” John J. McNeill labeled the inhospitality purportedly displayed at Sodom as “the crime that cries out25
to God for vengeance.” John Boswell claimed that “the original moral impact of the [Sodom and Gomorrah] passage had to do with26
hospitality.” James B. Nelson asserted, “Contemporary biblical studies persuasively indicate that the major theme of the story [of27
Sodom and Gomorrah] and concern of the writer were not homosexual activity as such, but rather the breach of ancient Hebrew hospitality norms.” What all of these interpreters have in common, then, is their view that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was lack28
of hospitality rather than homosexuality. While this interpretation is creative and obviously persuasive to some, a brief review of the facts surrounding the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrah reveals that this view, too, is untenable. Concerning the Hebrew word itys surrounding the destruction of da’ must be noted that while this term usually does mean “to get acquainted with,” it can also refer to sexual relations as it clearly does in Genesis 4:1, 17, 25; 24:16; 38:26. The decisive factor in determining the definition of this word (or any term with multiple possible meanings) necessarily must be the context. Following this principle, in the context of the Sodom and Gomorrah passage ys
must have a sexual connotation when it occurs in Genesis 19:5, for when the term recurs threesurrounding the destruction of da’ verses later the sexual meaning is the only one that makes sense. Otherwise, Lot would be saying that his daughters, who were engaged to two of the inhabitants of Sodom, had never actually been acquainted with a man! Moreover, Lot’s offering of his two daughters to the men of Sodom makes absolutely no sense if the men knocking at his door were merely asking to be introduced to his houseguests. Why not just introduce the angels to the inquisitive townspeople if that was all that was requested of him?
Another problem with this interpretation is that, if Lot was the one who sinned by breaking the local hospitality codes, then why was his life spared by the angelic visitors while the law-abiding townspeople were destroyed by the divine judgment? What is more, considering that Lot was a resident of Sodom, why were the inhabitants of Gomorrah killed for a sin in which they had no part? And if the residents of Sodom were so peaceable and honest that they came to Lot’s house late at night to enact the local hospitality codes, then why could God not find ten righteous people in the whole city (Gen. 18:23)? Nor can this interpretation explain why Lot seems to have felt threatened by the appearance of the townspeople (Gen. 19:6) or why the mob declared their intent to harm both Lot and his visitors without provocation (Gen. 19:9). It should also be noted that this interpretation is at odds with every interpretation of this passage prior to the middle of the twentieth century, as well as with the aforementioned verse in Jude 7 (cf. Luke 17:26-29; 2 Pet. 2:6-7, 10). In summary, therefore, this view is invalid, in fact, untenable, on numerous counts.
Despite the attempts of many, then, it seems clear that the sin that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not heterosexual gang rape, inhospitality, or some other sin unrelated to homosexuality (or an errant subset of it). Rather, as already29
indicated in our critique of pro-homosexual interpretations of the account, it is highly likely that the sin that brought God’s judgment on these people was that of homosexuality, for the following reasons.
First, the reference to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah in Jude 6-7 (cf. 2 Pet. 2:4-10) speaks of people who “indulged in sexual immorality and .” “Unnatural desire,” both in its New Testament context (cf. Rom.pursued unnatural desire . . . defil[ing] the flesh 1:26-27) and in its ancient cultural environment (see below), almost certainly indicates that the sin in view is homosexuality.
Second, the sin in view in the Sodom and Gomorrah incident is clearly sexual (the highly probable meaning of the word iny da’ Gen. 19:5, 8), and in context refers not merely to illicit sexual intercourse but to intercourse that is perverse and condemned by God.30
Third, the sin of homosexuality best accounts for God’s terrible judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah. It is highly unlikely that the judgment for inhospitality or merely intended gang rape (be it heterosexual or homosexual) would have been as severe.
Hence, the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that of homosexuality.
The Levitical Holiness Code A second section of Scripture for which pro-homosexual exegetes have proposed different interpretations is the sexual laws of the Holiness Code in the book of Leviticus. There are two laws in the Holiness Code that specifically address homosexuality. These are31
Leviticus 18:22 (“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”) and 20:13 (“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them”). Indeed, these laws constitute a significant portion of the biblical witness against homosexuality, for they both explicitly address homosexual relations in a casuistic manner and prescribe the death penalty for homosexual offenders (which God had previously enacted at Sodom and Gomorrah). Clearly, then, these two verses would need to be radically reinterpreted in order for one to make the claim that the Bible does not prohibit the practice of homosexuality.
Advocates of homosexuality who have dealt with these verses have generally adopted an occasional, culturally relative approach—that is, they claim that these verses are culture-bound temporal directives given to the Israelites, not eternally binding moral absolutes meant for the elect throughout the ages. While individual exegetes have made this argument in different forms with various nuances, the foundational argument that supports this view is usually the same (at least for those who believe in the continuity between
the Testaments). In short, this view centers on the use of the Hebrew word , which is translated “abomination” in both of32
these verses. According to proponents of this position, when the term is used in Scripture, it usually refers to some type of
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
88
ritual impurity connected to idol worship. Therefore, when God prohibited homosexuality in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, he was not addressing homosexuality per se but rather, in the context of this portion of the Holiness Code, prohibited homosexual acts performed
.by Canaanite temple prostitutes as part of the worship of false gods To quote Walter Barnett, “The whole context of these injunctions [in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13] is a polemic against the Israelites
imitating the defiling practices of the Canaanites whom they displaced in Palestine. Thus again, the prohibition is probably directed against the practice of ritual homosexual prostitution as found in the Canaanite fertility cult. In any event the intent cannot be to condemn all homosexuality and homosexual behavior.” Similarly, John Boswell writes, “The Levitical enactments [in Lev. 18:2233
and 20:13] against homosexual behavior characterize it unequivocally as ceremonially unclean rather than inherently evil.” Scanzoni34
and Mollenkott assert similarly, “The reasons given for these proscriptions [in Lev. 18:22 and 20:13] involve several factors [such as] separation from other nations . . . avoidance of idolatry . . . and ceremonial uncleanness. . . . [Homosexual] practices were part of the fertility religions.” This view, then, attempts to limit both the interpretation and application of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 to35
homosexual acts committed in the worship of idols.
In response to this interpretation, it must be noted that while the Hebrew word can refer to some type of ritual impurity connected to idol worship (cf. 2 Kings 16:3; Isa. 44:19; Jer. 16:18; Ezek. 7:20), it frequently does not have this connotation (cf. Gen. 43:32; Ps. 88:8; Prov. 6:16-19; 28:9). Indeed, sometimes refers to activities that are morally offensive to God, such as homosexuality. In the context of this passage in the Holiness Code, it is interesting to note that activities other than homosexuality are also labeled as (cf. Lev. 18:26), including incest (Lev. 18:6-18), adultery (Lev. 18:20), and bestiality (Lev. 18:23). If we were to apply a consistent hermeneutic throughout this passage, we would be forced to conclude that these other activities are likewise only prohibited within the context of idol worship. Of course, such an interpretation would be irresponsible in light of the fact that these other activities are consistently condemned throughout Scripture, as is homosexuality.36
Moreover, even if it could be proven that the laws in the Holiness Code were exclusively addressing ritual purity (which is doubtful), this still would not validate the morality of homosexual activity. To illustrate, it is clear that Scripture prohibits child sacrifice because it was part of the ritual worship of the Canaanite God Molech (cf. Lev. 20:2-5; 2 Kings 16:1-4; 2 Chron. 28:1-4; Jer. 7:30-31; Ezek. 23:36-39). Yet child sacrifice is always wrong, whether it is connected to false worship or not, because it in essence constitutes a breach of the sixth commandment. Likewise, homosexuality is always wrong, for it is a violation of God’s integral design of marriage and family. In short, then, the context of Scripture’s prohibition of a certain activity does not necessarily limit the
. This is especially true if the forbidden activity is prohibited throughout Scripture,immorality of that activity to that particular context as is homosexuality.
It seems clear, therefore, that the alternative interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 proposed by pro-homosexual exegetes come up short. Indeed, the sin prohibited in these two verses must be understood, as it traditionally has been, to be the general practice of homosexuality.37
HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
Our major source concerning the New Testament’s view of homosexuality is the apostle Paul, who refers to homosexuality in his letter to the Romans and in his first letters to the Corinthians and Timothy. We will deal with these passages in turn, as in the Old38
Testament section above giving special attention to efforts at reinterpreting these passages over against the traditional understanding.39
The Letter to the Romans The major passage on homosexuality in Paul’s writings is found in the first chapter of his letter to the Romans, where his denunciation of homosexuality is part of his larger presentation of the universal sinfulness of humanity in its rejection of God the Creator (Rom. 1:18-23). Because of this rejection, Paul contends, God gave depraved humanity over “in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the40
dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Rom. 1:24-25).
In what follows, Paul elaborates on precisely what he means by “the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves”: 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)41
Paul proceeds to reiterate that these “shameless acts” are a result of people’s rejection of God, who consequently “gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done” (Rom. 1:28). This is followed by a vice list, in which homosexuality is associated with a long litany of sinful human attitudes and behaviors (Rom. 1:29-31; cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10). Paul closes this section by issuing the indictment that though these people “know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:32). Hence, God’s judgment is pronounced not only on practicing homosexuals but also on those who condone such behavior (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-13).
It is probably no coincidence that it is in Paul’s letter to the Romans that this sweeping indictment of human depravity including a stern denunciation of homosexuality (as well as lesbianism, Rom. 1:26) is found. At the time of writing (c. 57), the Roman worldAD
was known for its moral debauchery, sexual excess, and perversity. The reign of Claudius ( 41-54) is notorious for such evils, as42 AD is that of his successor, Nero ( 54-68), during whose reign Paul penned his letter to the Romans. A few decades later, the book ofAD Revelation depicts the Roman Empire as the “whore Babylon,” of whose “wine of the passion of her sexual immorality” all nations
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
89
have drunk (Rev. 18:3; cf. Rev. 18:9; 19:2). In the seer’s vision, the woman is “arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality” (Rev. 17:4) and identified by an inscription on her forehead, “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth’s abominations” (Rev. 17:5). This same woman is “drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of the martyrs of Jesus” (Rev. 17:6).
In light of the literary and cultural context of Paul’s reference to homosexuality in the first chapter of Romans, there seems little doubt that he considered homosexuality at large, rather than merely more narrowly defined aberrant subsets of homosexual behavior, to be contrary to God’s created order and hence worthy of condemnation. What is more, Paul condemns not only those who inengage homosexual behavior but also those who such behavior without themselves engaging in it. However, recently attempts havecondone been made to identify the sin condemned in Romans and other New Testament writings as a more narrow offense. Since these efforts often take their point of departure at the specific Greek word , which does not occur in Romans but is found in Paul’s twoarsenokoit s other references to the subject, we will deal with these objections below.
1 Corinthians While Paul’s denunciation of homosexuality in his letter to the Romans involves his use of various circumlocutions of the practice (“dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,” Rom. 1:24; “exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature,” Rom. 1:26; “gave up natural relations,” “consumed with passion for one another,” “men committing shameless acts with men,” Rom. 1:27), he employs the Greek term to refer to homosexuality in his other two major references to the subject, 1 Corinthians 6:9arsenokoit s and 1 Timothy 1:10 (in 1 Cor. 6:9, the term is used as well; see further below).malachos 43
Paul’s reference to homosexuals in his first letter to the Corinthians is part of a section in which he deals with a variety of sexual issues confronting the Corinthian church. It should be noted at the outset that first-century Corinth was notorious for its sexual44
immorality. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul addresses reports according to which the Corinthians were tolerating a case where “a man has45
his father’s wife,” that is, he was having an ongoing sexual relationship with his stepmother (1 Cor. 5:1; cf. Lev. 18:8). Paul expresses his outrage at this false “tolerance” and urges the Corinthians to “deliver this man to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (1 Cor. 5:5). In a previous letter Paul had told the Corinthians not to associate with sexually immoral people (by which he meant not the sexually immoral of this world, but “anyone who bears ” [i.e., a fellow Christian] who is guilty of sexual immorality; 1 Cor. 5:9 11). Such a person thethe name of brother - Corinthians are to purge from their midst in the hope of repentance and restoration (1 Cor. 5:13).
The Vice Lists Referring to Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy
1 CORINTHIANS 5:10; 6:9 -10 1 TIMOTHY 1:9 -10 . . . not at all meaning the sexually . . . the law is not laid down for the just but immoral of this world, or the greedy for the lawless and disobedient, and swindlers, or idolaters . . . for the ungodly and sinners,
for the unholy and profane, Do not be deceived: for those who strike their fathers and neither the sexually immoral, nor mothers, for murderers, idolaters, the sexually immoral, men who practice nor adulterers, nor men who homosexuality, practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, nor thieves, nor the greedy, and whatever else is contrary to sound nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor doctrine. swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
After chastising the Corinthians for engaging in public lawsuits against one another (1 Cor. 6:1 8), Paul asserts that “neither the- sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality [note: the original has two Greek words, possibly referring to both the passive and active partners in homosexual intercourse], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9 10; cf. 1 Cor. 5:10). Paul adds, “And such were some of you. But you- 46
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). In the following section Paul denounces Christians who have sex with prostitutes, contending that this is a gross misrepresentation of true Christian freedom and urging believers to flee from sexual immorality (1 Cor. 6:12 20).-
The vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, of which the two terms related to homosexuality are a part, expands the list in 5:10 by repeating all six items found in the antecedent passage. In fact, the earlier list frames the subsequent one in that the first two and the47
last four items are repeated, with the four added characteristics being placed at the center. The terms “sexually immoral” and “idolaters” reflect the two major issues addressed in the context, sexual immorality (cf. 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 6:12-20) and idolatry (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1-11:1). Of the four new items, three (adulterers, , and ) are sexual; the fourth is thieves (though “robbers” maymalakoi arsenokoitai be more accurate). The vice list concludes with the four other items from 1 Corinthians 5:10-11.
Looking at the three items relevant for our present purposes, “adulterers” ( ) bears the straightforward meaning of marriedmoichoi persons having sexual relations outside marriage (Ex. 20:14; Lev. 20:10; Deut. 5:18; cf. Luke 18:11). The next two terms, andmalakoi
, require more extended comment. Both expressions have to do with homosexuality and are at times conflated into onearsenokoitai English phrase in translation, such as the ESV’s “men who practice homosexuality” (though keeping them as two separate terms seems preferable: cf. the ’s “male prostitutes . . . homosexual offenders” and the ’s “male prostitutes . . . practicing homosexuals”).NIV TNIV
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
90
The first term, , means literally “soft” (cf. Matt. 11:8 par. Luke 7:25) and in Paul’s day served as an epithet for the “soft” ormalakos effeminate (i.e., passive) partner in a homosexual (pederastic) relationship. Importantly, (as well as ) refers to48 malachoi arsenokoitai behavior and not mere orientation, as is implied by Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians 6:11, “And such were some of you.”49
The meaning of the term (which is also found in 1 Tim. 1:9-10, on which see the discussion below) has been thearsenokoit s subject of considerable debate in recent years. Some pro-homosexual exegetes have sought to restrict the application of the term 50
to a more narrow offense. John Boswell, for example, in an effort to demonstrate that the early church did notarsenokoit s disapprove of homosexual acts as such, disavows any connection between the two terms and in 1 Corinthiansmalakoi arsenokoitai 6:9, translating the former as “masturbators” and the latter as “male prostitutes.” According to Boswell, if the term 51 arseno- koitai were in fact referring to homosexuality in general, the term would not be absent “from so much literature about homosexuality.”52
Boswell also disavows any connection between the Levitical Holiness Code and the New Testament references to homosexuality, claiming that the New Testament writers would not have appealed to “the authority of the old to justify the morality of the new.”53
Others, such as Robin Scroggs, contend that Paul’s condemnation extends only to effeminate call boys in the context of an ancient homosexual practice called , sexual intercourse between an adult male and a young boy. Unlike Boswell, Scroggs links thepederasty 54
two nouns in 1 Corinthians 6:9 in his effort to demonstrate that only pederasty, not homosexuality in general, was condemned by Paul. Yet others have argued that the apostle’s reference to homosexuality is referring only to homosexual , not to “celibate”acts
homosexual relationships (that is, relationships between persons with a homosexual orientation who do not have sexual relations).55
Another group alleges that the New Testament condemns merely the negative dehumanizing pattern of homosexuality prevalent in and that it therefore cannot be applied directly to contemporary mutually consenting, non-exploitativefirst-century Hellenistic culture
homosexual relationships. Dale Martin, for instance, while maintaining that no one actually knows what meant,56 arsenokoitai suggests some form of as the most likely alternative. According to Martin, simply refers to those who areexploitive sex malachoi effeminate (but not to the passive partner in homosexual intercourse), charging that the term serves as a malleable concept for condemning others of whose practice one does not approve.57
William Petersen, finally, while agreeing with David Wright’s critique of John Boswell, objects to the translation “homosexuals” for in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 on the grounds that, in his view, a major disjunction exists between thearsenokoitai
contemporary conception of homosexuality and that prevalent in the ancient world. While in Greco-Roman thought sexual acts, not sexual orientation, were what characterized a person’s sexuality, Petersen maintains, modern usage defines “homosexual” primarily in terms of desire and orientation apart from actual behavior. Hence by using “homosexuals” for , one improperly retrojects aarsenokoitai modern concept into the ancient world “where no equivalent concept existed.”58
To sum up the discussion thus far, it has been argued that the New Testament references ought to be restricted only to an aberrant subset of homosexual behavior, be it (1) homosexual prostitution, (2) pederasty, (3) homosexual acts but not “celibate” homosexual relationships, or (4) some negative, dehumanizing, and exploitive form of homosexual relationships but not to homosexuality in general. Others object (5) that the concept of homosexuality has changed, so that using the term in modern translations of arsenokoitai is misleading. How are we to evaluate these arguments in light of the biblical evidence?
First, in light of the discussion of the teaching of the Old Testament and the book of Romans above, it appears very unlikely that what is universally condemned in the Hebrew Scriptures might, in New Testament times as well as in ours, be acceptable. As we concluded in our investigation of the Levitical Holiness Code above, the sin prohibited in these two verses [Lev. 18:22 and 20:13] must be understood, as it traditionally has been, to be the general practice of homosexuality, not a more narrow infraction such as homosexual acts performed by Canaanite temple prostitutes as part of the worship of false gods, as some pro-homosexual interpreters have argued.
Second, it appears likely that the term , which does not seem to occur in the extant literature prior to the presentarsenokoit s reference, was coined by Paul or someone else in Hellenistic Judaism from the Levitical prohibition against males “lying or sleeping with males” (Lev. 18:22:, : ; 20:13: ). This suggests that the term, as in the Levitical HolinessLXX arsenos . . . koit n arsenos koit n 59
Code, is in nature and encompasses homosexuality rather than merely specific ofbroad and general as a whole aberrant subsets homosexual behavior. As Gordon Wenham rightly notes, “Lying with a male” relates to “every kind of male-male intercourse,”60
including that between mutually consenting adults. As to Boswell’s argument that Christians would not have invoked the older order61
(i.e., the Levitical Holiness Code) to justify the new, in his first letter to the Corinthians Paul has already expressed his vehement opposition to the Corinthians’ tolerance of incest, which is likewise proscribed in the Levitical Holiness Code (1 Cor. 5; cf. Lev. 18:7-8; 20:11). As a Jew committed to the teaching and authority of the Hebrew Scriptures, the apostle would have been equally persuaded of the unacceptability of homosexuality. Boswell’s objection that the term is absent from much of ancient62 arsenokoitai literature on homosexuality and hence should not be taken as a general reference is likewise not persuasive, since one should not expect to find the expression in writings predating Paul (who may have coined the term) and since the Greeks used a large variety of words and phrases to refer to homosexuality. It should also be remembered that the prevailing form of male homosexuality in the63
Greco-Roman world was pederasty, so that one should expect the majority of references in Greco-Roman literature to be to this form of homosexual behavior.
Third, Scroggs’s argument that Paul’s references are merely to pederasty falls short on at least four counts.
1) There was a clear and unambiguous Greek word for pederasty, the term . We have every reason to believe that if Paulpaiderast s had wished to condemn not homosexuality at large but only pederasty, he would have used the appropriate Greek term for this practice.
2) The attempt to limit Paul’s condemnation to pederasty (a practice in which the adult male desired homosexual intercourse with a passive sexual partner in the form of a young boy) is contradicted by Paul’s reference to the male partners’ mutual desire for one
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
91
in Romans 1:27 (“consumed with passion for one another”).another 3) In the same passage in Romans 1:26, Paul also condemns lesbian sex, which did not involve children, so that an appeal to
pederasty does not adequately account for the prohibition of same-sex relations in this passage. 4) Even if (for argument’s sake only) Paul were to censure only pederasty in the passages under consideration, this would still not
mean that, as a Scripture-abiding Jew, he would have approved of homosexuality as such. Quite to the contrary. In contrast to the surrounding Greco-Roman world (which generally accepted homosexual acts), Hellenistic Jewish texts universally condemn homosexuality and treat it (together with idolatry) as the most egregious example of Gentile moral depravity.64
Fourth, even if (for argument’s sake) homosexual were the specific focus in the Pauline prohibitions (cf. Rom. 1:27, 32; thoughacts note the references to the futility of people’s thinking, their debased mind, and their foolish and lustful hearts in Rom. 1:21, 24, 28), this does not mean that he would have considered “celibate” homosexual relationships as being within the scope of the divine creative will, for this would be to exchange a man’s “natural” function for what is “unnatural.” As Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans,65
“their women exchanged relations for those that are ; and the men likewise gave up relations withnatural contrary to nature natural women and were consumed with passion for one another” (Rom. 1:26-27). This makes clear that Paul considered homosexuality to be “contrary to nature,” that is, contrary to the created order.66
As noted above, this is borne out clearly by the Genesis narrative. Not only does Genesis 1 repeatedly affirm that God made every crea ture “according to its kind” (Gen. 1:21, 24), but it also shows that God complemented the man, not by creating another butman by creating a . God’s creation of man as “male and female” is an integral part of the created order, and it is woman as male and female that the man and the woman reflect the divine image (Gen. 1:27). This is not altered by a mere denial that Paul in Romans speaks of homosexuality at large or by suggesting a distinction between homosexual acts and homosexual orientation; that homosexuality is not in conflict with God’s creation design can be maintained only by a decided .rejection of the biblical creation account itself Demonstrably, and as mentioned, in the context of Genesis 1-2 there is no place for homosexuality in that it is not even potentially procreative and thus stands outside God’s creative purposes of making humankind in two sexes in order to “be fruitful and multiply.” 67
As Robert Gagnon contends, “The notion that first-century Jews, such as Jesus and Paul, would have given general approval to a homosexual lifestyle if they had only been shown adequate examples of mutually caring and nonexploitative same-sex relationships is fantastic. More or different information about same-sex intercourse would not have changed the verdict for any first-century Jew because the anatomical, sexual, and procreative complementarity of male and female unions, in contrast with those between female and female or male and male, would have remained indisputable.”68
Fifth, not only is Paul’s view of homosexuality as contrary to nature in keeping with the foundational creation narrative in Genesis 1 and 2, but it is also illumined by prevailing views of homosexuality in contemporary Greco-Roman culture. Stegemann, for example,69
has argued persuasively that the same-sex partner in homosexual intercourse inverts the natural mode of being in that one of the males must act like a woman or one of the women as the male. Hence Philo ( 3.7 ßß 37-42) condemns pederasty in which70 Spec. Laws “passive partners . . . habituate themselves to endure the disease of effemination, let both body and soul run to waste, and leave no ember of their male sex-nature to smolder,” castigating them for violating nature by exchanging the male nature for the female and hence becoming guilty of unmanliness and effeminacy ( ).malakia
In the pagan world of Paul’s day, on the other hand, pederasty was condoned because sexual acts were evaluated not by God-given standards of morality but by social values and norms. Free males could choose women, boys, or slaves as sexual objects without71
causing offense as long as this did not interfere with their status as free males and as long as they did not “indulge in passive acts of love like a woman or a slave.” Remarkably, however, homosexual acts between free males were viewed with contempt because (as72
mentioned) one partner would need to adopt a passive (female) role. For this reason “society would have considered same-sex sexual acts between two men of equal standing to be shameful. What some in modern society find acceptable—male same-sex eroticism between equals in a committed relationship—would have been condemned in ancient society”—and this in a culture that fell far short of biblical standards for morality on many counts, including its approval of pederastic same-sex intercourse. This sheds a telling73
light on the contemporary debate concerning homosexuality, including that regarding same-sex marriages. Yet while Paul, a Jew74
who sought to contextualize the gospel in the Greco-Roman world of his day, concurred with the reasoning that same-sex relations are contrary to nature, he “differed from his society’s sexual mores in condemning same-sex sexual acts.”all 75
Sixth and last, Petersen’s argument that the concept of homosexuality has changed, so that the translation “homosexuals” for is misleading, fails to convince since ancient sources do not support his thesis that homosexuality was definedarsenokoita (malakia)
exclusively in terms of homosexual acts but not orientation. The apostle Paul himself, in his letter to the Romans, refers both to homosexual acts (Rom. 1:27: “shameless acts”; Rom. 1:32: “those who practice”) and underlying thoughts and passions (Rom. 1:24: “lusts of their hearts”; Rom. 1:28: “debased mind”; cf. Rom. 1:21). Hence the dichotomy erected by Petersen is false and is supported neither by Scripture nor by extrabiblical Greek literature.76
For these and many other reasons, attempts to limit the New Testament references to homosexuality to a narrower subset of aberrant homosexual behavior must be judged unconvincing and the traditional view must be upheld that the New Testament, as does the Old Testament, condemns homosexuality as sin and incompatible with God’s created order.
To this overall conclusion regarding homosexuality we may add several observations that flow from our study of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 in particular:
1) The church is told (1 Cor. 5:1 13). This includes those who practice homosexuality.not to tolerate sexual immorality in its midst - It seems clear that the apostle Paul would not have tolerated openly practicing homosexuals as members (much less in leadership) of a Christian congregation.
2) Homosexuality is as an attribute that will bar entrance into God’s kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9 11;listed together with many other vices -
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
92
cf. 1 Cor. 5:10). If homosexuality is not acceptable in heaven, the church must be clear that it is not acceptable in the church either. 3) Paul makes clear that some of the members of the Corinthian church were (1 Cor. 6:11). This shows that trueformer homosexuals
transformation of homosexuals is possible in Christ. As Paul notes, those individuals were cleansed from their sin (“washed,” perhaps referring to spiritual regeneration, with possible secondary reference to baptism), set apart for God and his service (“sanctified”), and acquitted and made right with God (“justified”) in Christ and by the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. 1 Cor. 1:30). This is a hopeful note indeed for any homosexuals who are willing to repent of their sin and appropriate Christ’s forgiveness and life-transforming power.77
We now turn to an investigation of the final New Testament passage that includes a reference to homosexuality, in Paul’s first letter to Timothy. Since we have already adjudicated the debate concerning the meaning of in our discussion of 1 Corinthiansarsenokoit s 6:9-10, our comments here can be briefer.
1 Timothy The final significant reference to homosexuality, in 1 Timothy, like that in 1 Corinthians, is included in a vice list. The reference is part of a digression (1 Tim. 1:8-11) that elaborates on the nature of the heretics’ misuse of the law. This is followed by a second78
digression (1 Tim. 1:12-17) that presents Paul, in contrast to the false teachers, as the model of a sinner saved by grace. This makes clear that Paul is not exalting himself above his opponents because he is intrinsically superior to them. Rather, it is solely his acceptance of God’s gracious offer of salvation and forgiveness in Christ that sets him apart from the heretics.
In this passage, Paul challenges the expertise claimed by these self-appointed “teachers of the law,” who may have charged the apostle with antinomianism (an “anti-law” bias). Despite their confident demeanor, they understand neither the law’s true purpose (1 Tim. 1:8) nor its intended recipients (1 Tim. 1:9-10). According to Paul, the heretics’ use of the law as a standard for Christian living was incompatible with “sound doctrine” (cf. 1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; 4:3; Titus 1:9; 2:1) that conformed to the “gospel of the glory of the blessed God,” which had been entrusted to Paul.
The law is not addressed to saved sinners nor does it need to be (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15-16); its primary purpose is to convict the unrighteous. To be sure, the law is good, if it is used properly. But if the law is given to restrain sin, and Christians have been set free from sin and are now leading quiet and godly lives, the law’s purpose has, in the case of believers, already been fulfilled. This argument is consistent with Paul’s earlier teaching on the purpose of the law in his letters to the Galatians and the Romans (cf. Rom. 7:7, 12-14, 16; 8:3-4; 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14, 22-23).
The vices (or sinners), listed here in six groups of two (or three), plus a concluding catch-all phrase, are as follows:79
1) lawbreakers and rebels; 2) ungodly and sinful; 3) unholy and irreligious (jointly echoing the first four commandments); 4) those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers (echoing the fifth and sixth commandments, “Honor your father and your
mother” and “You shall not murder”); 5) adulterers and homosexuals (echoing the seventh commandment, “You shall not commit adultery”); 6) slave traders or kidnappers, liars, and perjurers (echoing the eighth and ninth commandments, “You shall not steal” and “You
shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”); and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine. Within these pairs (or expressions of three), the offenses cited fall roughly within the same category. Thus, most relevant for our present purposes, both “adulterers” ( ; cf. 1 Cor. 6:9: , ) and “homosexuals” ( ) refer to sexual sins thatpornois pornoi moichoi arsenokoitais constitute a violation of the seventh commandment. As indicated, it appears that Paul’s list, after three general pairs80
(conveying the notion of godlessness, which may in some general sense be related to the first four commandments), follows the second portion of the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:12-16; Deut. 5:16-20), specifically commandments five through nine.81
Strong terms are chosen, perhaps to highlight the degree of evil in the pagan world and the need of law for those who have not heard the gospel (cf. Rom. 1:21-32).
The list of wrongdoers in 1 Timothy 1:9-10 leads Paul to discuss the “grace of our Lord” Christ Jesus coming into the world “to save sinners” (1 Tim. 1:14-15). Paul himself was once in the category of those whose actions were condemned by the law; now he has been shown mercy. This holds out hope even for the false teachers and those guilty of violating any of the above-mentioned commandments—but only if they repent and desist from their improper use of the Mosaic law.
Once again, then, Paul includes homosexuality in a vice list (unlike in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, not distinguishing between the two partners in homosexual intercourse), in the present instance subsuming homosexuality together with adultery as a violation of the seventh commandment and hence indicating its unacceptability for Christians. We conclude with a brief summary of our findings and some practical implications.
CONCLUSION
The Biblical Verdict on Homosexuality The biblical verdict on homosexuality is consistent. From the Pentateuch to the book of Revelation, from Jesus to Paul, from Romans to the Pastorals, Scripture with one voice affirms that homosexuality is sin and a moral offense to God. The contemporary church corporately, and biblical Christians individually, must bear witness to the unanimous testimony of Scripture unequivocally and fearlessly.82
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
93
In the contemporary climate of “political correctness” where those who denounce homosexuality as sin are accused of homophobia and where homosexuality is presented as an individual right similar to the rights of women or ethnic minorities, there is increasing pressure on the church to soften its stance toward homosexuality and to tolerate those who practice it, not only in the culture at large but even in its own ranks. In recent years, some mainline denominations have even begun to appoint openly practicing homosexuals83
to leadership positions both on the local and on the national level. To be sure, the church’s clear proclamation of the biblical teaching on homosexuality must be coupled with the proclamation of
God’s love for all people, including homosexuals. The beloved verse John 3:16, “For God so loved , that he gave his onlythe world Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life,” includes homosexuals just as it does all sinners. Homosexuality is not the unpardonable sin, and forgiveness is always available (1 Cor. 6:11).
But forgiveness implies repentance, and repentance implies admission of wrong. The church would fail in its scriptural mandate if it were exercising tolerance repentance and acceptance admission of wrong (cf. 1 Corinthians 5). In fact, if theapart from apart from church were to soften its denunciation of homosexuality, or remove it altogether, it would effectively remove the incentive for homosexuals to repent. The message would be that homosexuality is acceptable, not only in the church, but also before God. In this case, at least, we must try, with God’s help, to hate the sin but to love the sinner (which involves calling him or her to repentance).
Pro-homosexual Interpretations of Biblical Passages on Homosexuality and Their Weaknesses
The Contemporary Debate
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.
94
The most striking observation with regard to the contemporary debate over homosexuality is the fact that there have been very few, if any, biblical and/or theological arguments advanced by those who claim that homosexuality is allowed in Scripture. That is, the same kinds of arguments that are refuted in the discussion above continue to be advanced by pro-homosexual advocates. Rather than adduce new evidence or types of rationale, recent works on the subject written by supporters of homosexuality simply restate the standard arguments and interpretations described previously in this chapter.84
Yet while there is little movement in the scholarly or popular debate, there is considerable ferment in the general culture on a political and social level. In fact, it appears that acceptance of homosexuality is gaining ground—both in secular society and in many churches—as a viable alternative lifestyle. In the church, this is evidenced by the growing tolerance (and even promotion) of homosexuality among both laity and clergy in many of the mainline denominations, including the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopalian Church. In some of these church bodies85
homosexuality is just part of a growing discussion. In others it finds endorsement in official church policy statements. In yet others it is accepted as a matter of common practice. In general society, the growth of homosexual ideologies is reflected by the growing number of municipalities and states that have discussed and/or approved of civil legislation to allow for the practice of homosexuality, including the endorsement of same-sex marriage.86
It is important to note, however, that the basis from which most of the contemporary pro-homosexual arguments are made is that of human rights. Akin to the mid-twentieth-century civil rights legislation that justly protected the rights of minorities, much of the current support for the homosexual lifestyle is couched in terms of social justice. Yet, such arguments are invalid, for they equate a
with a . To classify homosexual sex as a human right, as many of the current pro-homosexual advocatesdesired act constitutional right do, is to assume that homosexuality is part of one’s inherent nature and not just a personal preference. Yet such a notion, which has never been proven, is deeply troubling because it may open the way for the justification of all types of sexual sin. Thus it is unclear what, by the rationale used to promote homosexuality as a human right, would prevent the justification, even legalization, of polygamy, incest, or pedophilia if such acts are claimed to be protected as a constitutional right.87
Practical Implications But what are the practical implications of the Bible’s unified witness against homosexuality? At the outset, we must be clear that the visible church ought to continue to oppose this distortion of the Creator’s biblical/traditional model of marriage and family. Denominations that have departed from Christendom’s historically orthodox position on homosexuality (either by openly endorsing homosexuality or by remaining silent on the issue) are certainly not in step with Judeo-Christian tradition nor, more importantly, with the Word of God.
Yet, for those who are within churches that oppose homosexuality or for Christians who are just personally convinced of the sinfulness of this practice, a more personal dilemma may surface. For example, what do you do if a friend or family member is involved in homosexuality, or if you are homosexual yourself? While this may seem like a daunting problem, especially for those directly involved, it must be remembered that, as for virtually every other transgression mentioned in the Bible, 1 John 1:9 applies: “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Furthermore, as mentioned above, although Paul clearly condemned homosexuality in several of his letters, when writing to the Corinthians he noted, “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. . But you were washed, you were sanctified, youAnd such were some of you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9-11).
Clearly, then, homosexuality is a sin that can be overcome. Fortunately, a number of ministries and other resources are available for those who are trying to break away from homosexuality.88
EBSCOhost: eBook Collection (EBSCOhost) printed on 11/3/2026 4:24:18 AM UTC via LIBERTY UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use.