Homosexuality And The Bible

When society and culture take what Scripture defines as sin and argue that not only is a certain sin permissible, but something to be celebrated and encouraged, it becomes necessary to counter such a claim with clarity and the truth of God’s Word. It becomes even more necessary when those who claim to be Christians join the world in advocating for moral abominations. This topic is not the focus of many blogs, books, videos and debates because the church has a particular gripe against a certain sin, it’s because many in our culture (and even within the church) fight tooth and nail to subvert God’s Word on the issue. Surely, a culture similarly advocating for incest, bestiality, or pedophilia would also invoke such a necessary response from the church. I want to take considerable time to address this relevant topic in our day and age. Let’s survey what Scripture teaches on the issue and also how Jews living in the first century would have understood the topic. 

Genesis 1-2

We begin with the creation narrative in  Genesis 1-2 with the creation of humans. That is, humans are made in the very image of God. Gen. 1:27 (NASB95) says: “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” In the second half of this verse, we see the Bible affirming something humans have known from a biological perspective for thousands of years. That is, humans consist of two sexes; male and female. In the following chapter, we get more detail involving the simple fact stated in 1:27. After creating man (male), God says in Gen. 2:18, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” After creating both male and female, Gen. 2:24 states that the union of the two complimentary humans (male and female) would be united into “one flesh” in marriage. Observe, then, God creating male and female and designing them to be joined into “one” via a marriage union: “The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.” -Gen. 2:22-24 (NASB95). “This ‘one flesh’ sexual union was thus established as the pattern for marriage generally, and this explains why Jesus cites Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 as the normative pattern that God expects all marriages to follow (see Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8). Paul, as a good disciple of Jesus, likewise strongly echoes Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 in his two primary texts on homosexual practice, Romans 1:23-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9” (Grudem, 845-46). Robert Gagnon states that even though this text doesn’t explicitly address homosexual relationships, to argue for legitimate homosexual relationships from this account would require “an entirely different kind of creation story.” He goes on to remark that “male and female are ‘perfect fits’ from the standpoint of divine design and blessing. Male and male, or female and female, are not” (Gagnon, 62). 

Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” -Lev. 18:22 (NASB95)

“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.” -Lev. 20:13 (NASB95)

After the foundation framework of God’s design in Genesis, we now turn to the Mosaic Law prescribed by God for His covenant people, Israel. A prohibition of homosexuality is included among a larger context of sexual sins outlawed by God. Incest (18:6-18), adultery (18:20) and bestiality (18:23) are listed with homosexuality (18:22) as grievous sins. We even see in Lev. 18:24-25, that because the Canaanites were practicing these things (to include child sacrifice and much more), God was bringing severe and harsh judgment upon them, meaning that there is a universal moral standard that extends to all people, not just the nation of Israel. In fact, this moral principle and culpability of both Jew and Gentile is exactly what Paul illustrates in Romans 1-2 (where Paul also addresses the sinfulness of homosexuality, which I will discuss below). This same universal moral standard is  also why God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for their wickedness in Gen. 18-19 (done long before the Mosaic Law was given to Israel). For God, Homosexuality was so serious a moral offense and so sullied the culture of purity that God demanded of His people, that the penalty for such an offense was death for both parties (Lev. 20:13). This act is literally rebellion against God’s design of male and female, the union He created them to have in marriage, and rebellion against the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28).

Grudem comments: “These passages in Leviticus are part of a consistent pattern of moral teaching throughout the entire Bible that views all kinds of sexual intercourse outside of the creation pattern of marriage between a man and a woman as morally wrong” (Grudem, 851). The list of moral “dont’s” provided in Leviticus reflect the holy standard of God. Surely as Christians, we don’t acknowledge worshiping other gods, child sacrifice, incest, bestiality, murder, theft, adultery, etc. as permissible. Yet this is exactly what culture (and some in the church) would have us do when it comes to homosexuality. Gagnon aptly comments, “The same God who gave the laws of the Mosaic dispensation continues to regulate conduct through the Spirit in believers. A substantial case must be made for affirming conduct that was regarded with such revulsion” (Gagnon, 121). Indeed, as we will see, many of these moral regulations (to include homosexuality) are repeated in the New Testament as binding for all people, especially as followers of Christ. 

Homosexuality In First Century Judaism 

To understand how Jews in Jesus’ and the apostles’ era interpreted and understood sexual sin, we can look at Jewish texts from the period. It shows that in orthodox thought, the Jews would have upheld the sexual prohibitions laid out in Scripture. This is helpful for interpreting Paul, for example. 

Jewish historian, Philo (10 BC-45 AD) writes of Sodom and Gomorrah: “As men, being unable to bear discreetly a satiety of these things, get restive like cattle, and become stiff-necked, and discard the laws of nature, pursuing a great and intemperate indulgence of gluttony, and drinking, and unlawful connections; for not only did they go mad after women, and defile the marriage bed of others, but also those who were men lusted after one another, doing unseemly things, and not regarding or respecting their common nature, and though eager for children, they were convicted by having only an abortive offspring; but the conviction produced no advantage, since they were overcome by violent desire;” -Philo: On the life of Abraham (135). 

More detail is given from Philo in writings such as Special Laws 1.325, 2.50, 3:37-42 (to include the passive partner going to great lengths to “feminize” himself for the appeal of the active partner) and in his work, On the Contemplative Life 59-62.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (37 AD-100 AD) affirms biblical marriage when he wrote: “But then, what are our laws about marriage? That law owns no other mixture of sexes but that which nature hath appointed, of a man with his wife, and that this be used only for the procreation of children. But it abhors the mixture of a male with a male; and if any one do that, death is his punishment.” -Josephus, Against Apion 2.199, 273-75. 

Wisdom of Solomon  (ca. 200-30 BC) is a text that likely had influence on the Apostle Paul as he wrote Romans 1. It speaks against all kinds of sexual immorality that would have been prohibited by God in Scripture. Wisdom of Solomon 14:24-27 states: “they no longer keep either their lives or their marriages pure, but they either treacherously kill one another or grieve one another by adultery, 25 and all is a raging riot of blood and murder, theft and deceit, corruption, faithlessness, tumult, perjury, 26  confusion over what is good, forgetfulness of favors, defiling of souls, sexual perversion, disorder in marriages, adultery, and debauchery. 27 For the worship of idols not to be named is the beginning and cause and end of every evil.” As a thoroughly Jewish writing, the meaning and definition of “sexual perversion” would be found in and defined by OT Scripture (like Leviticus 18, for example). 

Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:4 (ca. A.D. 200) states: “These transgressors are those who are stoned to death: One who engages in intercourse with his mother; or with his father’s wife, even if she is not his mother; or with his daughter-in-law; or with a male; or with an animal; and a woman who engages in intercourse with an animal.” 

Robert Gagnon mentions many more sources in ch. 2 of his book (see bibliography) and remarks: “given the severe stance against homosexual intercourse in the Levitical laws, it is inconceivable that any non-apostate Jew in antiquity would argue for the legitimacy of male-male sexual intercourse” (Gagnon, 162). He goes on to point out that in many Jewish writings, “the consistent return to the arguments of the anatomical and procreative complementarity of male and female will be especially important for assessing what Paul meant when he asserted that same sex intercourse was “contrary to nature,” and for our interpretation of his words” (Gagnon, 183). It is important and helpful to understand how this subject was approached and understood within Judaism as we turn to New Testament writings and gives us a more accurate lens from which we interpret biblical texts. 

Ministry of Jesus 

A crucial point of emphasis is that Jesus affirmed and upheld the moral law (Matt. 5:17-19) and in fact, raised the standard on moral issues! In the case of sexual sins, Jesus said: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” -Matt. 5:27-28 (NASB95). Far from relaxing moral standards, Christ actually raises the standard. He even addresses the root cause of such moral depravity; the heart of man. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander.” -Matt. 15:19 (ESV). The Greek word we translate as “sexual immorality” or “fornication” is porneia. This is simply an umbrella term that refers to “unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, unchastity, fornication” (BDAG). As someone who upheld the law of God, included in this term would be all prohibitions set forth in Leviticus. “No first-century Jew could have spoken of porneiai (plural) without having in mind the list of forbidden sexual offenses in Leviticus 18 and 20 (incest, adultery, same-sex intercourse, bestiality). The statement underscores that sexual behavior does matter. If Jesus made this remark, he undoubtedly would have understood homosexual behavior to be included among the list of offenses” (Gagnon, 91-92). 

In a conversation about divorce, we see in Mark 10:6-9 and in Matt. 19:4-6 that Jesus appeals to Gen. 1:27 and 2:24 not only as the authoritative word of God, but affirms and upholds the design and intent of one man and one woman becoming “one flesh” in a marriage union. Jesus’ strict interpretation and restriction of something the Mosaic law permitted (divorce) not only provides clarity to divided Jewish sects on the subject, but again, raises the standard and sets the bar quite high. The critiques Jesus provides to the Pharisees and Sadducees are in regards to either their incorrect interpretation of the law, their overemphasis on minor laws at the expense of “weightier matters of the law,” or their tendency to subvert the law of God with their own, man made traditions (Mark 7:8-13). Jesus never sought to come and tell them they were wrong for correctly following the very laws He gave them! An objection I’ve seen more than once is that Jesus never explicitly mentioned homosexuality as a sin, therefore it must be permissible (or at the very least, He was indifferent). This is very problematic on multiple levels. 

First, as discussed above, Jesus upheld the law, He did not annul it. In fact, He often provided clarity on interpreting the law or even raised the standard beyond external “dos and don’ts” to apply them to internal matters of the heart (see Matt. 5). Beyond this, when addressing sexual sins, the use of porneia was clearly understood by his contemporaries as referring to sexual intercourse forbidden by the Old Testament. 

Second, Jesus never explicitly mentions or condemns many wicked behaviors (such as incest, pedophilia, bestiality, rape, etc). Are we seriously to deduce that because Jesus never commented on these things during His incarnation and  earthly ministry that they are acceptable and pleasing to God? Surely this isn’t the logic we want to use. If we want to understand why Jesus didn’t specifically address certain things, it was because of the audience to which He was ministering. Jews! Sexual sins like bestiality and homosexuality were morally repugnant to their society. It’s what “filthy” Gentiles might engage in, but was not an issue in their culture at the time. On the matter of divorce, for example, there was great debate among the religious leaders on what specific grounds a man could divorce his wife. On the matter of strict sexual prohibitions found in the law (such as homosexuality), there were no such debates in Jewish society, therefore no need for Jesus to address it or correct any misinterpretation. You’ll note that when the topic of homosexuality is addressed in the NT, the audience is not primarily Jews who knew better, but Gentiles who were formerly pagan (such as in Rome, Corinth and Ephesus). 

Third, and perhaps the biggest error this objection makes is that it separates the Son from the Father and the Holy Spirit. It fundamentally confuses the nature of Christ and who He is. Jesus is a member of the Godhead. You cannot separate Jesus from the Father and the Spirit on any moral issue. This is an attempt to pit Scripture against Scripture as if it isn’t one unified narrative inspired by the same, Triune God. This is trying to rip the words that the apostles recorded Jesus as saying while incarnate from the words the Spirit spoke in the OT from the words the Spirit spoke through the other writings of the apostles. Multiple times Jesus affirmed the words of the Old Testament as the very words of God (Matthew 22:31, Mark 7:8-13, Mark 12:35-37) and the words delivered to us as the Scripture of the NT are also the words of God spoken by the Holy Spirit (John 17:8, 1 Thess. 2:13, 2 Tim. 3:14-17, 2 Peter 1:16-21). So when Scripture speaks to moral issues (like in 1 Cor. 6:9-10), it is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit speaking on these issues in a unified voice. Beyond this, a fulfillment of the ceremonial aspects of the law that ultimately were established to point to Christ (Heb. 9:10) does not make God’s moral standards obsolete. In fact, God saves us for “good works,” not to perform works He considers wicked (Eph. 2:10; 5:1-5, Titus 2:11-14 cf. 1 Cor 6:9-10). Jesus likened sinners as sick people in need of a doctor. “I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” -Luke 5:32. The call of Jesus was “repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15), “go and sin no more” (John 8:11), not “stay as you are, no need to turn from sin” (no verse found). A prostitute that came to Christ would no more continue in her profession than a tax collector who came to Christ would continue to exploit others to enrich themselves. In fact, we see just the opposite in Luke 19:1-10 with the tax collector, Zacchaeus. The fruits of repentance are beautifully illustrated in that passage: “Zacchaeus stood there and said to the Lord, “Look, half of my possessions, Lord, I will give to the poor, and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will pay back four times as much.”- Luke 19:8

In short, “There is no good evidence that Jesus would have permitted followers to commit adultery, get divorced and remarried, prostitute themselves, have sex with animals, or have sex with members of the same sex, just as there is no good evidence that Jesus would have allowed tax collectors who claimed to be his disciples to continue to exploit others for their own material gain. The evidence we do have strongly suggests that Jesus believed that people who did not repent of sexual immorality or economic exploitation would not have a place in the coming kingdom of God” (Gagnon, 225-26). 

Romans 1:26-27

The context of Romans 1:26-27 is that it is in the middle of a polemic by Paul against the depravity of man, particularly pagan Gentiles (the sinfulness and culpability of God’s covenant people (Jews) is the subject of Rom. 2). In ch. 1 though, God’s wrath is being revealed against the ungodliness of those who suppress the truth about God (v.18). Instead of honoring God, they went their own way and worshiped idols and false gods (v.21-23). As a result of these things God’s wrath against them was to give them over to their depraved nature, to abandon them. This is a terrible form of punishment (v.24). This is the context in which our verses are set. Part of this distortion is to depart from what is natural to God's design, to “go their own way.” It is a rebellion against God. 

In Rom. 1:26-27 we have the clearest, most overt teaching on homosexuality in the New Testament. Craig Keener writes, “Having distorted God’s image (1:23), which was originally in male and female humans (Gen. 1:26-27), humanity now distorted its own sexuality (Rom. 1:24-27)” (Keener, 428). God gives them over to the evil desires and passions of their flesh. Without the context of verse 27, verse 26 might be ambiguous to us, but Paul makes clear in verse 27 the action taking place. Men sexually desiring one another and carrying out those desires with each other just like the women were doing in verse 26. Note the “Likewise” or “In the same way” that starts off verse 27. “Given the meaning of “contrary to nature” (para physin) and comparable expressions used by Jewish writers of the period to describe same-sex intercourse, the meaning of the phrase in Paul is clear… Paul in effect argues that even pagans who have no access to the book of Leviticus should know that same-sex eroticism is “contrary to nature” because the primary sex organs fit male to female, not female to female or male to male.” (Gagnon, 254). These two verses describe women burning with sexual desire for and having sex with other women and men doing likewise with other men. In a pagan society like with the Greeks or Romans, this wasn’t uncommon and is why Paul is including this in his polemic against Gentile culture. “Although Jewish texts speak of Jewish adulterers and thieves, they nearly always treat homosexual behavior as a Gentile practice” (Keener, 428). 

And, as some might try to claim, the passage in Rom. 1 is not referring to pederasty within Roman culture. Pederasty is a sexual relationship between an adult man and a boy, usually non-consensual wherein there is an imbalanced power dynamic. Nowhere in the text is this indicated, especially given Paul’s Jewish background and the context of God’s created order and design as the backdrop behind all this in verses 18-23. More obvious is the fact that Paul is condemning both participants in the text. If Paul was referring to pederasty as practiced in first century Roman culture (or simply put, a non-consensual homosexual encounter with a minor), one is forced to conclude that he is proclaiming that the wrath of God falls on minors who are non-consensual participants. This is exegetically absurd. Furthermore, there is little evidence that pederasty was practiced by women who are also equally addressed in this passage. Nowhere is this indicated in the flow of thought and context of Chapter 1. “Paul’s absolute indictment against all forms of homosexuality is underscored by his mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26, since this form of intercourse in the ancient world was not typically characterized by sex with adolescents, slaves or prostitutes” (Grudem, 854). Grant Osborne, therefore, rightly concludes that “Paul unambiguously follows biblical precedent and teaches that homosexuality runs counter to the way God has designed human sexuality.”  Osborne goes on to add: “The issue is one of biblical authority. Even when the command runs counter to the current cultural norm, the true Christian must obey God’s command rather than the demands of political correctness” (Osborne, 54).

There is no exception or “special provision” made in Scripture that allows for homosexual acts or desires. Some may try to advocate for allowances in the context of a “loving” and “monogamous” relationship. First of all, we know that “love” directed at the wrong thing is sinful (1 John 2:15-17, John 3:19, 12:43) and by definition love “does not rejoice in unrighteousness” (1 Cor. 13:6). As Rom. 1:26-27 points out, burning with passion and desire does not equal holy and righteous. “Many human emotions (for example, lust, anger, jealousy, covetousness) obviously run counter God’s intended design for nature and cannot be pronounced good simply because they are felt. Paul attributes such sinful impulses to the fall of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21)” (Gagnon, 264). The simple truth is, Scripture gives no allowance for homosexuality as it also doesn’t for adultery. There is no justification for committing adultery, for example. God absolutely condemns it with no exceptions. Likewise is the prohibition of homosexuality in any context. These few verses are the clearest detailed teaching on the matter. As Robert Mounce concisely puts it, “The sexual drive itself is wholesome and good. It is God‘s way of providing both pleasure and progeny. When directed toward a person of the same sex, it abandons its God-given purpose and becomes a degrading passion” (Mounce, 83). 

1 Cor. 6:9

There is quite a bit of contention around 1 Cor. 6:9 concerning the translation of the two words we will be looking at that describe “homosexuality.” 

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,” (NASB95). 

There are a few different possibilities of translating this verse due to the Greek words Paul used. The first is malakoi which the NASB renders as “effeminate.” The NET translates it as “passive homosexual partners” due to the context in which Paul is using it. The most literal meaning of the word malakoi is “soft to the touch” (as seen in Matt. 11:8; Luke 7:25). However, Greek lexicons will provide sub-definitions that take figurative word usage into consideration. In antiquity, malakoi was also used figuratively in a derogatory manner to refer to effeminate males, but also goes even beyond that. The NET cites two highly regarded Greek lexicons as a big part of their justification for rendering the word as “passive homosexual partners.” Their translation note regarding this word states: “BDAG 613 s.v. μαλακός 2 has “pert. to being passive in a same-sex relationship, effeminate esp. of catamites, of men and boys who are sodomized by other males in such a relationship.” L&N 88.281 states, “the passive male partner in homosexual intercourse—‘homosexual.’…As in Greek, a number of other languages also have entirely distinct terms for the active and passive roles in homosexual intercourse.” 

Robert Gagnon has some good, detailed analysis of this word and points out that Paul “places this vice alongside a list of offenses that lead to exclusion from the kingdom.” This would suggest, as Gagnon posits, that an offense this severe involves more than simply being effeminate. “In 1 Cor. 9:6, malakoi are sandwiched in between adulterers (people who commit an act of immoral sexual intercourse) and arsenokoitai (people who have something to do with an immoral act of same sex intercourse). Immoral sexual intercourse, then, would appear to be an identifying mark of the malakoi. Furthermore, the epithet “soft” itself suggests males playing the female role in sexual intercourse with other males” (Gagnon, 308). Given other usage in antiquity, like Philo (Spec. Laws 3.37-42), Gagnon concludes that “malakoi should be understood as the passive partners in homosexual intercourse, the most egregious case of which are those who also intentionally engage in a process of feminization to erase further masculine appearance and manner” (Gagnon, 312). All this considered, the word malakoi likely indicates the “passive” consensual partner in a homosexual act. It appears, then, that a translation like the ESV aims to flatten out the distinction between the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai and simply translate the verse as “men who practice homosexuality” (covering both the “active” and “passive” roles). 

This naturally leads into the next word, arsenokoitai, which many translations have rendered in a way that refers to the active (dominant) role in a homosexual act or homosexuality in general. The contention some have here is that arsenokoitai seems to have been a word that Paul made up (as far as we can tell). Paul is the first in antiquity to use the word (1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10). Why, then, do our translations render this word the way they do? The answer is fairly simple. Paul often refers to the Septuagint (Greek translation) when quoting and referring to the Old Testament. It appears he took two words from the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 (verses that prohibit homosexuality) and combined them. The Greek word for “male” (arsēn) and the word for “bed” or “lying” (koitē). The two words combined together in plural form is arsenokoitai. Simply put, Paul is combining two words here to denote the act of homosexuality as found in the Greek translation of Lev. 18:22 and 20:13. Given the context of the passage in 1 Cor. 6 and the grouping of malakoi together with arsenokoitai, Gagnon (along with translation linguists) conclude that “given such a pairing, our identification of malakoi with passive homosexual partners confirms the supposition that the term arsenokoitai refers to the active partners in homosexual intercourse” (Gagnon, 316).

Indeed, a footnote on 1 Cor. 6:9 in the ESV translation states: “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.” The NIV 2011 also provides a nearly identical footnote on this verse and the NET comes to the same conclusion and cites both the Greek lexicon BDAG (135) and L&N (88.280) in its translation note. Additionally, while a translation like the NASB95 chooses to translate the two terms separately and distinctly (nor effeminate, nor homosexuals), the updated NASB2020 acknowledges that the two terms are likely connected into one meaning (not only the active, but passive roles of a homosexual encounter).

“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 men who practice homosexuality,” (ESV)

“Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men” (NIV2011)

“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,” (NET)

“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,” (NASB2020)

The contention around this verse only exists due to those looking to subvert what Scripture teaches (and what the church has rightly understood for nearly two millennia regarding homosexuality). The conclusions of arsenokoitai here also apply to its usage in 1 Tim 1:10. 

Epilogue: “Always Reforming”

An argument I’ve seen is that we should “always be reforming the faith.” What is meant by this in relation to the topic at hand is that in essence, we need to conform our faith around the time and culture we live in. We need to change the way we interpret the Bible to better align with the whims of what is perceived as acceptable by society. As society evolves, our understanding of Scripture should too. Proponents of this argument point (rather ignorantly) to the Reformation and to one phrase; semper reformanda (always reforming). This phrase was coined in 1674 by Jodocus Van Lodenstein and communicated the principle that the church should continue to always let the Word of God reform and shape the church. The full quote in English is: “the church is Reformed and always [in need of] being reformed according to the Word of God.” The context of the Reformation was not about reforming or revising the church to better conform to the culture and society, the Reformation was about reforming the church back to Scripture on matters of faith and practice rather than conforming to the traditions of man (that had in many ways contradicted and subverted Scripture). Kevin DeYoung states that “there is nothing Reformed about changing the church’s theology and ethics to get on “the right side of history,” or to stay current with the insights of the social sciences. The point of Van Lodenstein’s phrase was that the church must constantly resubmit to the lordship of Christ exercised in his word.” DeYoung goes on to sum up that this principle “is about radical adherence to the Holy Scriptures, no matter the cost to ourselves, our traditions, or our own fallible sense of cultural relevance” (DeYoung, 309-10). 

Sadly, much of what constitutes the arguments for permitting homosexuality seems little more than historical revisionism or a fundamentally flawed concept of “refining” the faith to be culturally relevant. “Revising” the faith and reforming back to “the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3) are two very different things. One is grounded in absolute truth, the other is nothing but relativism fueled by the whims of subjective feelings. It’s the difference between standing on rock that never moves versus standing on shifting and sinking sand. 

*For further study on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible, see Wayne Grudem, Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, Ch. 33 (2018). For a scholarly, detailed study on the topic, see: Robert A.J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2001)

Bibliography:

DeYoung, Kevin- Daily Doctrine: A One Year Guide to Systematic Theology, 2024

ESV Bible- Footnote, 1 Cor. 6:9

Gagnon, Robert A.J.- The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, 2001

Grudem, Wayne- Christian Ethics: An Introduction to Biblical Moral Reasoning, 2018 

Keener, Craig- The IVP Bible Background Commentary, New Testament, Second Edition, 2014

Mounce, Robert- Romans, NAC, 1995

Osborne, Grant R.- Romans, IVPNTC, 2004

NET Bible- Translation Note, 1 Cor. 6:9