What the Bible Actually Says About Homosexuality
And Why It's Time to Stop Using It as a Weapon
This work could have a larger impact with your support. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber for just $6.66/month (yes, intentional).
Remember, together, we can make all the difference.
For many Christians, the question of homosexuality boils down to six Bible passages—just six. Often called the “clobber verses,” these scriptures have been weaponized for centuries to exclude, shame, and vilify LGBTQ+ people. But what happens when we actually examine them closely?
Not with fear. Not with inherited assumptions. But with eyes open to the history, language, and context of what these ancient texts really meant—and didn’t mean.
Because here’s the truth:
The Bible has been mistranslated, misused, and misunderstood on this issue.
And it’s time to set the record straight.
First: Let’s Be Clear
This is not about rewriting the Bible to match modern values. It’s about re-examining what the Bible actually says—and doesn’t say—on its own terms. We’re not rejecting the Bible. We’re rejecting bad interpretations of it.
🔍 Let’s Go Verse by Verse
1. Genesis 19: Sodom and Gomorrah
Claim: God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality.
Reality: No, He didn’t.
This story is about a mob attempting to gang-rape Lot’s male guests—a horrific act of violence, dominance, and humiliation common in the ancient Near East. It is not about loving same-sex relationships. In fact, the Bible itself tells us what the sin of Sodom was:
“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: arrogance, overindulgence, and unconcern for the poor and needy.” – Ezekiel 16:49
Let that sink in. The Bible says the sin of Sodom was greed, pride, and apathy—not sexuality.
2. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13
Claim: Homosexuality is an “abomination.”
Reality: The word abomination (Hebrew: toevah) refers to ritual impurity, not moral depravity.
These verses appear in the Holiness Code—a list of ancient laws for Israelites that includes bans on wearing mixed fabrics, eating shellfish, or trimming your beard. Nobody follows all of them today. Christians know they are no longer under the Old Testament law (see Romans 6:14, Galatians 3:23–25).
But somehow, these two verses get selectively pulled forward.
If you’re going to quote Leviticus, consistency demands you also abstain from shrimp cocktails and polyester blends.
3. Romans 1:26–27
Claim: Paul condemns same-sex relationships.
Reality: Paul condemns idolatry and excess—not orientation.
This passage describes men and women exchanging “natural relations” for “unnatural ones.” But we have to ask: Natural according to whom? In ancient Jewish culture, it was “unnatural” for men to shave their beards or eat pork. Paul himself calls long hair on men unnatural in 1 Corinthians 11. Cultural norms shift—Paul’s words must be understood in their first-century context.
He’s not talking about consensual, loving relationships. He’s critiquing pagan temple rituals, where sex was often used as worship or abuse, particularly between older men and enslaved boys (a practice called pederasty). That’s exploitation—not love.
To quote Romans 1 as a blanket condemnation of LGBTQ+ people is to rip it from context and weaponize it.
4. 1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10
Claim: The Bible plainly says homosexuals won’t inherit the kingdom.
Reality: These verses hinge on two mistranslated Greek words: malakoi and arsenokoitai.
Malakoi literally means "soft." In the ancient world, it was used to insult men as lazy, weak, or overly luxurious—not as a sexual slur. It could just as easily describe a man who wears silk robes.
Arsenokoitai is a word Paul likely coined. It’s a compound of “male” (arsen) and “bed” (koite). But it doesn’t appear in Greek literature before Paul—and scholars are still debating what it meant. Possibilities include: economic exploitation, temple prostitution, pederasty, or abuse.
But here’s what it definitely didn’t mean:
Gay people as we understand them today. The concept of sexual orientation didn’t even exist in Paul’s time.
The English word “homosexual” wasn’t inserted into the Bible until 1946. That mistranslation has caused decades of spiritual violence—and was later acknowledged as a mistake by the RSV translation committee itself.
What the Bible Doesn’t Say
Let’s zoom out for a second.
Jesus never mentioned homosexuality—not once.
The Bible never condemns committed, loving, monogamous same-sex relationships.
There is no biblical word for “gay,” “lesbian,” or “trans.” The authors lacked any concept of modern identity or consent-based intimacy.
Every so-called condemnation is either a purity law, a critique of violent behavior, or a mistranslation of obscure Greek.
It’s time to stop pretending the Bible has clarity on this issue. It doesn’t.
The Truth Is Bigger Than a Verse
The Bible is not a weapon. And yet, for many LGBTQ+ people, it has been used to justify emotional abuse, social exile, and family rejection.
But when someone uses a single verse to invalidate someone else’s humanity, they aren’t practicing Christianity. They’re practicing control.
Let’s stop asking, “What does the Bible say about homosexuality?” and start asking:
What does love require of us?
Because if your theology causes more harm than healing—if it tears people down instead of building them up—then maybe it’s not coming from the God you think it is.
Pushback Response Guide:
How to Navigate Real Conversations with Christians About Homosexuality and the Bible
Your Role: Not to win an argument—but to plant doubt in dogma and invite curiosity.
START HERE:
They say:
“The Bible clearly says homosexuality is a sin.”
You respond with curiosity:
“That’s something I used to believe, too. But have you ever looked into the original words that were used?”
➡️ If they say “No, what do you mean?”
Continue with:
“Well, take Paul’s letters. The words malakoi and arsenokoitai are translated as ‘homosexuals’ in some Bibles—but scholars actually don’t agree on what they meant. The word ‘homosexual’ wasn’t even in the Bible until 1946.”
➡️ If they say “That’s revisionist. It always meant homosexuality.”
Ask:
“Would you be open to looking at the historical record together? Because even the RSV translation team admitted they made a mistake.”
Then recommend:
UnClobber or the documentary 1946 as neutral, research-based sources.
IF THEY QUOTE LEVITICUS
They say:
“It says in Leviticus that it’s an abomination.”
You ask:
“Right—and do you also follow the other purity laws from Leviticus? Like not wearing mixed fabrics or avoiding shellfish?”
➡️ If they say “That was Old Testament law. We’re under grace now.”
Gently reply:
“Exactly. So why do we keep this one law and discard the others?”
➡️ If they say “Because this one is still morally relevant.”
Challenge lovingly:
“What makes it morally relevant if Jesus never reaffirmed it—and Paul’s use of similar terms is disputed?”
IF THEY QUOTE ROMANS 1
They say:
“But Romans 1 is crystal clear—men with men, women with women.”
You reframe:
“That passage is actually about idolatry and pagan rituals. Paul’s describing people engaging in excess and temple sex rites—not modern, consensual, loving relationships.”
Then ask:
“Would you agree that context matters, especially when interpreting a 2,000-year-old letter?”
➡️ If they push back on the idea of context:
Ask:
“Would you read the U.S. Constitution the same way without knowing the culture of the 1700s?”
This frames biblical interpretation like any historical document:
It must be read with the original audience in mind.
IF THEY SAY “GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN”
They say:
“God created male and female for a reason.”
You acknowledge the belief, then ask:
“What do we do with people who are intersex? Or those who feel deeply misaligned with the body they were born in?”
➡️ If they say “That’s just brokenness from sin.”
Try:
“But if their identity brings peace and authenticity, and causes no harm—how is that sin?”
➡️ Or:
“Is sin defined by breaking rules or by causing harm?”
This shifts the debate from rule-keeping to ethics of harm and well-being.
IF THEY FALL BACK ON “LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN”
They say:
“I don’t hate anyone. I just think acting on it is sinful.”
Ask:
“Would you say the same to a straight couple? That they can love each other but never express it physically or romantically?”
➡️ If they say “That’s different.”
Say:
“But for a gay person, that means lifelong isolation. That’s not just asking for celibacy—it’s asking for invisibility.”
Then ask:
“Can love ever be sinful if it’s mutual, respectful, and committed?”
IF THEY’RE OPEN BUT UNSURE
They say:
“I want to understand this better but I don’t want to go against God.”
Reassure them:
“That’s such a good place to start. You’re not rebelling—you’re seeking truth.”
Then offer:
“There are some powerful resources written by Christians who love the Bible but also believe we’ve misread these texts. Want me to send you one?”
Recommend:
Matthew Vines, David Gushee, Kathy Baldock
Suggested Resources
📘 UnClobber by Colby Martin
A progressive pastor breaks down the six “clobber passages” used to condemn LGBTQ+ people. Colby combines biblical scholarship with pastoral insight to show how affirming theology is not only possible—it’s more faithful to the text.
📘 God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines
A Harvard-trained evangelical offers a deep dive into Scripture from a conservative perspective, arguing that same-sex relationships can be holy and biblical. It’s one of the most accessible and convincing works for Christians on the fence.
📘 Changing Our Mind by David Gushee
Written by a leading evangelical ethicist, this book traces Gushee’s transformation from anti-LGBTQ+ theology to full affirmation. It offers a rigorous moral and theological case for inclusion from inside the evangelical world.
🎞️ 1946: The Mistranslation That Shifted Culture (Documentary)
This powerful film investigates how the word “homosexual” was wrongly inserted into the Bible in 1946—and how that single translation choice shaped decades of discrimination. Essential viewing for anyone who thinks the Bible has always condemned LGBTQ+ people.
📘 Walking the Bridgeless Canyon by Kathy Baldock
A comprehensive historical and cultural look at how LGBTQ+ people became marginalized in the church. Baldock combines rigorous research with compassion to expose the real roots of non-affirming theology.
This work could have a larger impact with your support. Please consider.
👉 $6.66/month. Because truth doesn’t fear scrutiny. It invites it.