Does the Bible teach against homosexuality?

Many today would claim that a loving homosexual relationship is not a sin.  They say that things are different now and during Bible times people didn’t have an understanding of the many orientations we have today.  The claim is that what the Bible truly condemns is the hateful act of one person taking advantage of another.  However, the Bible does not specify under which circumstances homosexuality is a sin because there are no circumstances in which it isn’t.  Also, God was, is, and always will be aware of all things that were or will be. 

To start the discussion we will first look at several verses specifically calling out homosexuality as a sin by name.  These are straightforward, but often dismissed as being specific to predatory homosexuality and not overall.  However, it is hard to imagine a more general way that the word “homosexual” could be used.

1 Corinthians 6 9 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 homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and worldly, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

As mentioned above some say that this is in reference to homosexual relationships where one is being taken advantage of such as when involving a minor or prostitute.  They reason that these verses do not apply to a loving consensual relationship.  However, there are other verses that don’t call out homosexuality in a generic sense, but in describing the act.  Debating the nature of the relationship called out in the verses is likely a fruitless battle, but in the following verses where the act itself is called out as sinful, the relationship is irrelevant.

Leviticus 18  22 You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20 13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. 

Romans 1 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature, 27 and likewise the men, too, abandoned natural relations with women and burned in their desire toward one another, males with males committing shameful acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a depraved mind, to do those things that are not proper, 29 people having been filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, and evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, and malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unfeeling, and unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them.

God created woman for man.  They were made as a pair.  The intent was one woman for one man. If marriage is only between a man and a woman and it is the only place where sex is not a sin then homosexual acts will always be sinful.

Genesis 2 18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the livestock, and to the birds of the sky, and to every animal of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 And the Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “At last this is bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called ‘woman,’ Because she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19 3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no person is to separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why, then, did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The desire for sex can be very strong.  One purpose of marriage is to keep it under control so that you do not sin in lusting for another or having sex with another.  Marriage is the only avenue that this desire can be sated.

1 Corinthians 7 1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of sexual immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise the wife also to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise the husband also does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each has his own gift from God, one in this way, and another in that.

Some claim that God made them to prefer members of the same sex and therefore the verses above must not mean what they say.  There is no real defensible way to debate either side of an argument claiming an understanding of how God made specific individuals or why.  He does not reveal to us why one man is tempted by one thing and another man is not.  However, we do recognize that an alcoholic is expected to stay sober.  Though someone is inclined to alcoholism we recognize it does not excuse the behavior.  We all have temptations that we are more vulnerable to.  We are still expected to resist.

The Bible seems very clear that homosexuality is a sin.  The question then comes up why some believe it is acceptable.  When discussing a highly debated topic it is always good to consider both sides if you have an open heart and are truly interested in finding the truth.  From the internet, extracts of one of the more complete Bible based defenses I found follows:

To the contrary, the amount of cultural, historical and linguistic data surrounding how sexuality in the cultures of the biblical authors operated demonstrates that what was being condemned in the Bible is very different than the committed same-sex partnerships we know and see today. The stories of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) and the Levite’s concubine (Judges 19) are about sexual violence and the Ancient Near East’s stigma toward violating male honor.

This is classic misdirection.  Even if you could claim that Genesis 19 was condemning sexual violence only, it does not prove that it does not also condemn homosexuality. 

The injunction that “man must not lie with man” (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13) coheres with the context of a society anxious about their health, continuing family lineages, and retaining the distinctiveness of Israel as a nation.

This claim was made without any base.  There is no proof given or logical argument to follow.  As a result this is purely opinion based on a desired outcome.  The assumption is that these authors understood the reason behind the injunction that was stated and that it is no longer valid.  There is no indication in the verse or anywhere else in the Bible that would lead someone to this conclusion.  The fact remains that the text states directly that homosexual acts are sinful.  The reason is not given, because the reason is irrelevant.  We have to recognize that we could nullify any verse by assuming a reason it was written and then attacking that assumed reason.  This is not an honest approach to apply to any interpretation of any verse.

The verses are:

Lev 18 22 You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination.

Lev 20 13 If there is a man who sleeps with a male as those who sleep with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they must be put to death. They have brought their own deaths upon themselves. 

We see further that Romans 9:27 addresses this directly stating that the sin was substituting man for woman and not health anxieties , lineages, or Israel’s distinctiveness. 

The wording we find in Romans 1:26 describing the sin as “exchanged natural relations for that which is contrary to nature” is quite specific as to what the sin is.  It would be difficult to come up with wording more clear that condemned homosexuality as a whole.  These verses are blunt and specific to the act with no outside qualifiers because if something is sin under all circumstances there is no need to mention circumstances.

The argument is further made: 

Each time the New Testament addresses the topic in a list of vices (1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:10), the argument being made is more than likely about the sexual exploitation of young men by older men, a practice called pederasty, and what we read in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans is a part of a broader indictment against idolatry and excessive, self-centered lust that is driven by desire to “consume” rather than to love and to serve as outlined for Christian partnership elsewhere in the Bible.

Again “it is more than likely” is a baseless statement that shows doubt in the very language used.  If this had any base then the phrase “more than likely” would not be needed. This is very commonly the logic we use when we find a truth we don’t like and decide to “explain it away”.

While it is likely that Jews and Christians in the 1st century had little to no awareness of a category like sexual orientation, this doesn’t mean that the biblical authors were wrong. What it does mean, at a minimum, is that continued opposition toward same-sex relationships and LGBTQ+ identities must be based on something other than these biblical texts, which brings us back to a theology of Christian marriage or partnership.

This argument appeals to our sense of arrogance.  This reasons that we are smarter now and more “evolved” than the simple people who lived in the past.  Just because they didn’t call it sexual orientation, or have as many categories does not mean that they were ignorant.  Both male prostitutes and effeminate men were condemned as well.  This is exactly sexual orientation.

Deuteronomy 22 5 “A woman shall not wear a man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

The last argument made is perhaps the most telling and alarming.  “continued opposition toward same-sex … must be based on something other than these biblical texts.”.  We are told not to look at the texts regarding homosexuality to learn about homosexuality.  Further, If the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality then why is the phrase “this doesn’t mean that the biblical authors were wrong” present? This statement only makes contextual sense if the author recognized that the biblical authors were condemning homosexuality in general. 

Often very complex arguments are required to do the gymnastics necessary to get around the truth.  In the end, the truth is often very simply stated.

Leviticus 18  22 You shall not sleep with a male as one sleeps with a female; it is an abomination.

 

1.    Human rights campaign: https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality