Question: Hey PB, I have heard that there is a list of Scriptures that do nothing but base people who happen to love the same sex. Why does it appear as though Christians use these Scriptures to base people in love?
Answer: This is a great question. While some Christians are not kind about this and use the Scriptures you mentioned as "clobber passages," the reason they use the same list over and over is that God's Word is clear about His stance on it. However, we should always proceed with kindness. Let's talk about it.
I love the Bible. I have spent much of my life teaching it, and I believe we should take it seriously even when the questions are difficult. Especially then.
That is why I struggle with the way a few passages are sometimes used in conversations about gay people. They have been called the “clobber passages” because a verse can become a weapon: quote it, label someone, and end the conversation.
I do not think that is faithful to Scripture.
These passages deserve more than a slogan or a conversation stopper. The people affected by our interpretation deserve more than a slogan.
Let's walk through the texts most often raised. My goal is not to pretend that every verse is easy or that thoughtful Christians all agree. The goal is to ask what each passage actually says, what it does not say, and how it fits within the larger story of the Bible.
What happened in Sodom? (Genesis 19)
When the visitors arrive in Sodom, Lot brings them into his home. A crowd then surrounds the house and demands that the visitors be brought out. What follows is a threat of sexual violence. This is a horrifying story of people seeking to humiliate and assault strangers. It is not a story about two people seeking a faithful relationship. (www.biblegateway.com)
The Bible itself helps us read Sodom’s story. Ezekiel 16:49–50 names the city’s arrogance, excess, neglect of the poor, and detestable behavior. Jude 7 also points to sexual immorality. We should pay attention to all of that. But neither reference turns an attempted assault into a picture of every same-sex relationship. (www.biblegateway.com)
We need to be precise here. Saying that Genesis 19 is about violence does not, by itself, settle every Christian question about sexuality. It does tell us that using Sodom as a simple argument against gay people asks the story to do something it does not do.
What do the laws in Leviticus prohibit? (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13)
These verses are more direct. They prohibit a man from having sex with another male. I do not think we should get around that by saying the verses are only about temple prostitution. The text does not plainly say that. (www.biblegateway.com)
The harder question is how Christians should apply the laws given to ancient Israel. Leviticus is part of the covenant life God gave Israel. As followers of Jesus, we do not apply every provision of that law in the same way. That does not mean we can dismiss a command simply because it is in the Old Testament. It means we have to do the work of interpretation: consider its setting, its purpose, and how the New Testament relates to it.
Even scholars who agree that Leviticus prohibits male same-sex intercourse disagree about the precise scope and significance of its wording. Jacques Joosten, for example, has proposed a narrower reading tied to the laws concerning prohibited family relationships. Other scholars reject that reading and understanding the prohibition more broadly. The disagreement is real; presenting one disputed explanation as a fact would not help us read honestly. (academic.oup.com)
So Leviticus raises a serious question. It does not permit us to skip the question by quoting one line without considering how Christians read the rest of the law. The bottom line on this was that the prohibition of same sex relatiobships had to do with it violating the established order that God set up, concentual or not.
What is Paul doing in Romans 1? (Romans 1:18–2:1)
Romans 1 is probably the most significant passage in this discussion, and I want to treat it with particular care. Paul describes women and men engaging in same-sex acts. We cannot simply say he is talking only about abuse; the passage does not limit itself to that. Scholars who disagree about its application today still recognize that we have to reckon with Paul’s words. (cambridge.org)
But we also have to read the argument Paul is making. Romans 1 describes humanity exchanging worship of the Creator for created things, followed by disordered desires and a long list of sins. Then comes Romans 2:1. Paul turns toward the person who has been judging everyone else and says that they, too, stand under judgment. By Romans 3:23, his conclusion is unmistakable: all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory.
Paul is building toward the good news that no one can make themselves right with God and that righteousness comes through Jesus Christ. If I use Romans 1 to place myself above another person, I have missed where Paul is taking me.
The interpretive debate goes further. James Brownson argues that Christians should ask what moral reasoning lies behind Paul’s words and whether the relationships many people are discussing today fit the pattern of desire Paul describes. Other scholars, including Preston Sprinkle, argue that Brownson’s distinction does not adequately account for Paul’s language. That disagreement should make us careful about claiming that the passage is simple or that every question has been settled by a single observation about ancient culture. (Andrew Goddard, 2015)
For me, the clearest thing about the flow of Romans is this: it moves from human sin to the grace of God in Christ. Any reading that stops at identifying someone else’s sin stops too soon. Therefore, Paul is saying it is a sin and then continues with a much longer list of other sins. We cannot say homosexuality is not a sin, while also saying things like greed and envy are. They are all part of the same sin spiral, and that's why we all need Jesus.
What do Paul’s Greek words mean? (1 Corinthians 6:9–11 and 1 Timothy 1:9–10)
These passages contain a Greek word often transliterated arsenokoitai. First Corinthians also includes malakoi. English translations render these terms differently, and scholars debate their meaning and scope. Some argue that arsenokoitaidraws on the Greek wording of Leviticus and refers broadly to male same-sex intercourse. Others argue that we cannot establish its full meaning or the relationships it covers with that level of certainty. There is also debate about how malakoi should be understood in this list. (www.cambridge.org)
Two claims go further than the evidence allows. One is that these words plainly describe every gay person or every same-sex relationship today. The other is that we know they refer only to exploitation. We should be honest about what is debated.
We should also read beyond verse 9. Paul’s list in 1 Corinthians includes several kinds of wrongdoing. Then, in verse 11, he turns to what God has done for the Corinthians: they have been washed, sanctified, and justified in the name of Jesus Christ. Paul is writing about the power of Christ to bring people into a new life. That is the center of the passage.
What about Jesus and marriage? (Matthew 19:3–12)
Jesus’ words about marriage belong in this conversation, too. When questioned about divorce, he points his listeners back to Genesis and speaks of a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Many Christians understand this as establishing the pattern for marriage, and that is a serious reading of the passage. (www.biblegateway.com)
We should also remember the question Jesus was answering. People were asking when a man could divorce his wife. Jesus responded by challenging the ease with which a vulnerable spouse could be set aside. We should listen to his teaching in that setting rather than treat it as though he were directly answering every question Christians ask about same-sex relationships today.
Later in the same conversation, Jesus acknowledges that not everyone follows the expected path of marriage. That does not settle our present debate either. It does remind me to listen closely to the whole passage and to be cautious about assuming I know the shape every other person’s life must take.
How should the church respond?
I know faithful Christians reach different conclusions after studying these passages. Some believe the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman. Others believe a faithful, covenantal same-sex relationship can be consistent with the Bible’s larger vision of love and commitment. We should describe those differences honestly.
But there are things we should be able to say together.
Every person bears God’s image (Genesis 1:27). Jesus calls us to love our neighbors (Matthew 22:39). Paul says that none of us comes to God on the strength of our own righteousness (Romans 3:23–24). Those truths should shape our words before we ever enter a debate. We can study hard. We can disagree honestly. We can refuse to use the Bible carelessly. And we can remember that the person across from us is never a theological problem to solve. They are someone Jesus calls us to love.
Gay people are like everyone else: they need Jesus. So do I. So do you. We all need his grace, his truth, and the new life only he can give. May our churches be places where people encounter him—and where they know, from the way we treat them, that we have been changed by his love.
So, instead of seeing God's clear prohibition of homosexuality as God "picking on" gay people. I see it as God waving a massive flag saying, "I want to save you, too!"
