Faith Resources
Doesn’t the Bible clearly state that homosexuality is a sin? On what basis do you claim it isn’t?
This is because people often “read into” (eisegesis) the Bible their own traditional concepts. The interpretation that “homosexuality is a sin” has become so deeply rooted and passed down through generations that the Church continues this erroneous teaching. In fact, if we look closely at history, it isn’t hard to find that the Church has repeatedly caused persecution or discrimination—intentionally or unintentionally—due to incorrect biblical interpretation. For example, the Bible was once misused to support slavery and racial discrimination. Many early scientists and archaeologists were labeled evil when their discoveries of truth contradicted Church teachings.
More recently, hasn’t the Church’s stance and teaching on gender equality been constantly shifting? The Bible explicitly says, “the man is the head of the woman,” and “women should remain silent in the churches.” Why, then, are there female preachers and even female pastors today? In this process of evolution, do you know how many early feminists were persecuted and treated with hostility by the Church? Ultimately, what is the Bible’s warning to us in this regard?
“They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” (Mark 7:7)
“[Paul’s] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position.” (2 Peter 3:16-17)
The Bible has not changed, but biblical interpretation progresses alongside civilization, becoming more comprehensive, richer, and more accurate.
Some churches believe “homosexual orientation is not a sin, but homosexual acts are.” What is your view?
Jesus said: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). 1 John 3:15 also records: “Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.” It is clear that in God’s eyes, sin in thought is equivalent to sin in action. Therefore, if homosexual acts were a sin, homosexual orientation would also be liable for that sin. A teaching that looks only at behavior and ignores the heart does not align with biblical principles.
Secondly, if we reversed the statement to say, “Heterosexual orientation is not a sin, but heterosexual acts are,” everyone would surely ask: What kind of heterosexual acts? In what context? For example, molestation, rape, keeping a mistress, soliciting prostitutes, and adultery are sins; but a one-to-one, consensual, lifelong committed sexual relationship is not, right? The same applies to homosexual relationships; there should not be a double standard, for God does not show favoritism.
The Bible undoubtedly discusses certain corrupt homosexual acts (involving lust or violence), but it discusses corrupt heterosexual acts even more. Yet, we do not say the Bible opposes heterosexual acts or heterosexual orientation because that would be a logical fallacy of overgeneralization.
How then do you explain the six passages often cited to oppose homosexuality?
1) Genesis 19:1-25
If one sets aside biased perspectives, it is not hard to see the sin of the people of Sodom: they attempted a collective gang rape of angels. According to Jewish tradition, hospitality to strangers is paramount (Hebrews 13:1-2). These people not only failed in this but treated the guests with violence—and these were not ordinary guests, but messengers of God, indicating their wickedness had reached its peak. This had absolutely nothing to do with homosexual acts occurring between two people who love each other. Even looking at the dozen or so other verses in the Bible that mention Sodom and Gomorrah, no trace of a condemnation of homosexuality can be found.
Jesus’ interpretation cannot be wrong! When he cited the sin of Sodom as a metaphor, he was referring to “not welcoming the messengers of God” (Matthew 10:11-15, Luke 10:8-12).
Unfortunately, the term “Sodomy” has been widely interpreted as “anal sex” or “homosexuality,” a definition even found in English dictionaries. In various English Bible translations, wherever homosexual acts are touched upon, they are translated as “Sodomites,” showing the influence of generational hearsay.
2) Judges 19:15-30
This story bears a striking resemblance to the Sodom story, albeit with a more gruesome and horrific outcome. What was the sin of the people of Gibeah? Was it truly homosexuality? Or was it an extreme lack of hospitality toward travelers (even though they belonged to the same twelve tribes of Israel)? Judges 20:5 clearly states the mob’s intent: “The men of Gibeah rose up against me and surrounded the house in the night, intending to kill me; and they raped my concubine to death.”
If one still insists these passages in Genesis and Judges target homosexuality, then one must also agree that women are the property of men, and that handing over one’s wife or daughter to be ravaged by a mob is more “moral” than dying oneself.
3) Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13
One must be careful when citing Leviticus, as this book records the statutes and laws the Israelites were to keep after the Exodus to separate them from the Gentiles for the sake of nation-building (Lev. 18:1-4, 20:26).
The New Testament clearly states that Christians are not subject to these Jewish laws (Col. 2:20-23, Heb. 7:18, 8:13). This is why today we do not offer animal sacrifices, we wear blended fabrics, we eat pork and shellfish, and we do not support polygamy or slavery. Women are not put to death for having sex with their husbands during menstruation, and people with disabilities can serve as clergy.
However, these two verses indeed regard “male anal sex” as “unclean” (the Hebrew word Toevah, translated as “abomination” in the Union Version). This is because the act involved “cultic” religious rituals popular in Canaan at the time (Lev. 18:21, 20:1-6, 1 Kings 14:22-24). Engaging with male temple prostitutes (Qadesh) symbolized seeking a deity’s blessing for a bountiful harvest. Furthermore, because Hebrew culture viewed women as second-class citizens and male property, treating a man “as a woman” was an insult to masculinity. This explains why sexual acts between women were not prohibited. The “male anal sex” referred to here was “unclean” because it involved idolatry and violated the cultural norms of male superiority—it is a completely different matter from modern homosexuality.
Jesus also cited Leviticus, but he used it to teach people to love their neighbors as themselves (Lev. 19:18, Matt. 22:39), which is the sum of all the laws.
4) Romans 1:26-27
Like the passages in Leviticus, this clearly discusses certain homosexual acts. To understand the nature of the behavior, the reader only needs to look from verse 19 to verse 32 to see the underlying cause and effect. Verses 19-23 are the “cause,” explaining the sin of the Greeks: they intentionally refused to acknowledge God and worshipped idols. At that time, thousands of cults were popular in Rome and Corinth, many of which used sexual rituals to worship idols. Verses 24-32 discuss the consequences for these people. First, God gave them over to promiscuity (v. 24), followed by promiscuity regardless of gender (v. 25-27). Clearly, this passage warns that because people worshipped idols, their minds became distorted, leading to what Paul called “unnatural” acts. Finally, their very character changed, leading to depraved minds and all kinds of evil (v. 28-32).
The homosexual acts described in Romans 1:26-27 were committed under the influence of occult rituals. Homosexuals today do not become homosexual because of idol worship, nor are they necessarily more evil or unrighteous than the average person. The main theme of Romans is that both Jews and Gentiles can be “justified by faith” (Rom. 1:16-17)—it is a message of “inclusion.”
5) 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:9-10
There are two key words here:
- Malakos: The Chinese Union Version renders this as “male temple prostitutes,” which is relatively accurate. Unfortunately, some English versions read bias into the text, translating it as “effeminate” or even “homosexuals.”
- Arsenokoites: Translated as “those who sleep with men.” In English, it is often translated as “homosexuals” or “Sodomites,” while the RSV translates it alongside Malakos as “sexual perverts.” The true meaning of this word was lost long before Bible translations began; the only thing scholars know is that it is composed of arsen (man) and koite (bed). In the context of 1 Corinthians 6, Paul discusses the issue of prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15-16). If Malakos refers to a young male prostitute, Arsenokoites likely refers to an adult male prostitute or a client. This matches 1 Timothy 1:10, where “those who sleep with men” is paired with “fornicators” (the original Pornoi also refers to male prostitutes). The Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) translates the Hebrew Qadesh (male temple prostitute) in 1 Kings as Arsenokoites.
It is irresponsible to rashly translate Malakos and Arsenokoites as “homosexuality.” For generations, many homosexuals have been labeled “unrighteous people who cannot inherit the kingdom of God” because of these two passages, denying them their salvation and Christian identity. “Unrighteous people” here actually refers to “those who have not been justified by faith.” Once believers are called “righteous,” they are no longer under the law. The preface to 1 Timothy 1:9-10 specifically warns against teaching the law haphazardly, for the command’s goal is love (1 Tim. 1:3-8).
6) Genesis 1:27-28 and 2:18-25
Unlike the other verses, the creation story is cited against homosexuality because it doesn’t mention it, implying it is against nature and the Creator’s will. This argument is weak. Are we forbidden from doing anything that didn’t exist at creation? Must modern people use the lifestyle of the first humans as an absolute model? If so, we shouldn’t wear clothes, since clothing was invented only after the Fall. God told humans to be fruitful and multiply; does that mean those who choose to have only one or two children are disobedient? Childless couples would be “against nature,” whether by choice or biology. God told man to leave his parents; is it a sin to live with parents after marriage? Modern marriage is based on love, yet why doesn’t the creation story mention this? It doesn’t mention celibacy either—is that against nature? Can immediate relatives marry? Otherwise, how did Adam and Eve’s children populate the earth? Wasn’t Sarah, the wife of the Father of Faith, Abraham, his half-sister (Gen. 20:12)? Why did God allow polygamy? Abraham, Esau, Jacob, and even David—a man after God’s own heart—had multiple wives and concubines, and Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines (1 Kings 11:3).
Tracing the creation story back to its context and meaning, it was a confessional text used by the Israelites during their exile for collective worship, affirming that God is the Master of the universe and history. Its purpose was not to discuss family ethics; therefore, it cannot be seen as a modern Christian model for living, otherwise a series of absurd questions would arise. The text neither intends to restrict the human marriage system nor implies that homosexuality is against nature.
