The Bible addresses same-sex relations in a handful of passages across both testaments. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 prohibit male same-sex intercourse, while Romans 1:26–27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9 are the primary New testament references. Traditional churches read these as lasting moral prohibitions. Progressive scholars, including Matthew Vines, argue the verses target exploitative or idol-connected practices, not committed partnerships. Christians continue to disagree sharply on what these passages meant then and require now.
Key Takeaways
- Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 explicitly prohibit male same-sex intercourse, with the latter prescribing death for both partners.
- Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy are the primary New Testament passages addressing same-sex behavior.
- Key Greek terms like *malakoi* and *arsenokoitai* are debated, with some scholars arguing they reference exploitation rather than consensual same-sex relationships.
- Some scholars argue Levitical prohibitions were context-specific ritual purity laws, not universal moral standards binding on Christians today.
- Traditional churches, including Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, consistently uphold prohibitions on same-sex behavior based on direct scriptural readings.
What the Old Testament Actually Says About Homosexuality
Two key texts appear in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, both part of a section called the Holiness Code.
Leviticus 18:22 states directly that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman, calling it an abomination.
Leviticus 20:13 goes further, prescribing the death penalty for both partners.
The Hebrew word used, *to’eyvah*, meaning detestable, applies specifically to this act within those chapters.
Importantly, the Old *testament* addresses only male same-sex intercourse; it contains no equivalent prohibition targeting women.
Traditional Jewish and Christian interpretations have consistently read these passages as broad prohibitions covering all forms of male homosexual conduct.
Some scholars argue the Leviticus prohibitions were specifically intended to distinguish Israelite behavior from Canaanite polytheistic practices rather than to establish a universal moral law.
Some modern interpreters, such as Matthew Vines, have drawn a parallel between the Levitical prohibition on homosexuality and the shellfish prohibition in Leviticus 11, arguing that both belong to ceremonial and ritual purity laws fulfilled in Christ rather than to the enduring moral law.
Many readers place these passages in conversation with broader biblical timelines and interpretations that also address the age of the earth and interpretive methods, such as biblical chronology, when considering historical context.
How the New Testament Addresses Same-Sex Relationships
Unlike the Old covenant’s Holiness Code, the New covenant addresses same-sex relations in only a handful of passages, all found in letters attributed to Paul rather than in the Gospels themselves.
The New covenant’s few references to same-sex relations appear only in Pauline letters, never in the Gospels themselves.
Ten of Paul’s thirteen letters say nothing on the subject, leaving Romans 1:26–27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy as the primary texts.
Jesus himself recorded no prohibition against same-sex relationships.
Scholars note that key Greek terms in these passages likely referenced pederasty or prostitution rather than committed partnerships.
The word “homosexuality” did not exist until the late nineteenth century, meaning no direct biblical equivalent exists.
Most researchers conclude these passages addressed specific ancient practices, making careful interpretation essential before applying them to modern same-sex relationships built on love and mutual commitment.
Romans 1:26–27 describes “passions of dishonor” in the context of Paul’s broader condemnation of pagan idol worship, suggesting the passage may target specific religious practices rather than same-sex relationships in general.
The Greek term “arsenokoites,” translated as “sodomites” in 1 Corinthians, is a compound word combining “arsen” meaning male and “koite” meaning marriage bed, and appears alongside vices such as theft, greed, and drunkenness, none of which alone bars inheritance of the kingdom of God.
Archaeological work at sites linked to early Christian memory also helps scholars assess how later traditions developed around teachings and locations, including Golgotha.
What Do Scholars Say About the Bible and Homosexuality?
Scholarly opinion on what the Bible says about homosexuality falls into two broad camps, though both sides agree on more than the debate might suggest. Most traditional scholars, including Robert Gagnon and Tim Keller, hold that the Bible uniformly presents same-sex relations as contrary to creation’s design.
Keller notes the church maintained near-total unanimity on this position historically. However, Jeffrey Siker argues the dominant view among critical scholars has shifted away from that traditional reading.
Both camps generally agree the biblical passages address same-sex acts rather than sexual orientation as modern readers understand it. The Bible’s authors had no concept of an inborn homosexual orientation.
Scholars on both sides acknowledge this distinction matters when applying ancient texts to contemporary conversations about identity and sexuality. Some scholars, like Dr. David Lincicum, point to the Bible’s handling of slavery as a parallel case, where overarching themes of love informed a later reevaluation of passages that once seemed to settle the matter.
Other affirming theologians, such as Brandan Robertson, argue that the Bible’s six references to same-sex behavior specifically address exploitation, abuse, and idolatry rather than consensual same-sex relationships. Many scholars also place these discussions in the broader context of early Christian beliefs about Jesus’ divinity and the shaping influence of the Doctrine of the Trinity on theological interpretation.
Do These Verses Apply to Modern LGBTQ Identity?
How well the Bible’s ancient words translate into modern conversations about LGBTQ identity depends largely on what those words actually meant in their original settings. Scholars point out that the concept of sexual orientation only emerged in the late 19th century as a medical and psychological category. Biblical authors described specific behaviors without recognizing an inherent, unchangeable identity behind them. This creates what researchers call an interpretive mismatch — applying modern identity labels to ancient behavioral descriptions.
Ancient cultures simply had no framework for understanding sexuality as a core component of human personality. Because of this gap, many academic scholars argue that the six commonly cited passages never directly addressed loving, committed same-sex partnerships as understood today, making their direct application to modern LGBTQ identity genuinely complex. Notably, the Talmud recognizes six genders beyond the binary categories of male and female, suggesting that even ancient religious traditions held more nuanced understandings of human identity than is often assumed. Scholars examining key biblical terms such as malakoi and arsenokoitai have debated whether these words refer to homosexuality at all, or rather to exploitative and transactional sexual behaviors common in the ancient world.
The language of the Bible—primarily Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—also shapes how these terms were used and understood in their original cultural contexts.
How Do Christians Today Disagree on What These Verses Mean?
That gap between ancient text and modern identity sits at the heart of why Christians today find themselves so divided.
Traditional churches, including Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox institutions, maintain that passages like Romans 1:26-27 and Leviticus 18:22 clearly prohibit same-sex behavior as moral violations. Catholics also ground such teachings in their broader sacramental and doctrinal framework, including beliefs about marriage and sexual ethics Catholic doctrine.
Conservative Protestant denominations largely agree.
Progressive Christians, however, argue those same verses address exploitation, idolatry, and cultural practices rather than consensual relationships.
Scholar Matthew Vines interprets Romans 1:26-27 as critiquing pagan cult rituals specifically.
The Human Rights Campaign states the Bible never condemns loving same-sex partnerships.
Some mainline Protestant denominations now affirm that view.
The disagreement often hinges on whether Levitical laws represent eternal moral standards or context-specific regulations no longer binding under Christian teaching.
Some Christians point to examples like Leviticus 19 restrictions on mixed-fabric clothing as evidence that many Levitical laws are not upheld by modern believers, raising questions about selective application.
Traditional interpretation also roots its position in the Genesis creation account, viewing Adam and Eve as the original intended pattern for human relationships established before sin entered the world.
