In recent years, a new approach has gained traction among progressive theologians and LGBTQ-affirming advocates. They argue that the biblical authors—especially the Apostle Paul—did not have in mind modern, committed same-sex relationships when they condemned homosexual acts. Instead, we are told, Scripture only opposes exploitative, violent, or abusive forms of homosexual behavior, such as pederasty, temple prostitution, or coercive arrangements.
This argument is often presented as nuanced, empathetic, and theologically evolved. It seeks to carve out space for “monogamous gay Christians” who claim to reconcile faith and same-sex desire. At the same time, it asserts that traditional Christian teaching has misunderstood or misapplied the Bible’s sexual ethics.
But is this new reading truly faithful to the text of Scripture? Does it reflect the intent of Paul and the other biblical writers—or is it reading modern assumptions into an ancient and consistent moral framework?
To answer that question, we turn again to hermeneutics—the careful, disciplined art of interpreting Scripture. This article will apply biblical interpretation principles to the claim that Paul only condemned abusive homosexual acts, not loving, consensual ones. In doing so, we will expose this view as deeply flawed and ultimately incompatible with Christian theology, anthropology, and sexual ethics.
Hermeneutics: How We Interpret Matters
Hermeneutics comes from the Greek word hermēneuein, meaning to interpret or explain. It’s how we determine the meaning of Scripture—not just what it says, but what it means in context.
Sound hermeneutics guards against:
- Eisegesis: Reading into the text what we want to find.
- Anachronism: Imposing modern categories onto ancient texts.
- Prooftexting: Quoting isolated verses without context.
Instead, good interpretation includes:
- Contextual reading: Analyzing the surrounding verses, chapters, and book themes.
- Lexical analysis: Understanding what words meant in their original language and usage.
- Historical background: Interpreting passages in light of the culture and worldview of the time.
- Canonical consistency: Letting Scripture interpret Scripture.
- Theological coherence: Ensuring our interpretation aligns with the broader teaching of the Bible.
When we apply these principles, we see that the idea that Paul was only condemning abusive homosexual acts—rather than all homosexual behavior—is hermeneutically and theologically indefensible.
The Progressive Argument: Paul Didn’t Understand Modern Gay Love
The core claim goes something like this:
The Apostle Paul didn’t have any concept of loving, mutual, monogamous same-sex relationships like we see today. When he condemned homosexuality, he was referring to exploitative systems—such as older men using boys (pederasty), temple sex, or master-slave sexual coercion—not genuine love between equals. Therefore, his words should not be applied to modern same-sex couples.
This argument hinges on two assumptions:
- That all forms of homosexual behavior known in the first century were exploitative, and
- That Paul’s prohibitions were culturally limited and not applicable to today’s consensual same-sex relationships.
While this reinterpretation may sound compassionate, it is both historically inaccurate and hermeneutically inconsistent. Let’s analyze Paul’s writings in context to see what he actually meant.
Hermeneutical Analysis of Paul’s Teaching
A. Romans 1:26–27 — The Foundational Text
“For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
—Romans 1:26–27 (ESV)
This is the most extensive and theologically significant condemnation of same-sex behavior in the Bible. It describes both male and female homosexual acts. Let’s apply hermeneutics:
Context:
Romans 1 is part of Paul’s broader indictment of human sin and rebellion against God’s revelation. It’s not focused on Roman culture or a particular sexual system—it’s a sweeping theological diagnosis.
Language:
- Contrary to nature (Greek: para physin) indicates a violation of God’s created order—not cultural norms.
- Men committing shameless acts with men—Paul doesn’t qualify this with terms like “abusive,” “coercive,” or “idolatrous.”
- Consumed with passion for one another implies mutual desire, not coercion.
In short, Paul condemns same-sex desire and action itself, not merely exploitative versions.
B. 1 Corinthians 6:9–10 — The “Vice List”
“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality… will inherit the kingdom of God.”
—1 Corinthians 6:9 (ESV)
Paul uses two Greek terms here:
- Malakoi – Literally “soft ones,” often referring to men who take the passive role in homosexual acts.
- Arsenokoitai – A compound of arsēn (male) and koitē (bed). It directly echoes the Greek wording of Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman…”
Important observations:
- Arsenokoitai was not a known Greek slang term. Paul coined it from Leviticus, indicating continuity with Old Testament law.
- There’s no suggestion of coercion in the wording.
- These terms describe categories of conduct, not particular social structures.
The plain reading is that any man who engages in sexual activity with another man, regardless of consent or affection, is in view.
C. 1 Timothy 1:9–10 — The Lawful and the Lawless
“…the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless… the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…”
—1 Timothy 1:9–10
Again, Paul uses arsenokoitai in a list of sins that violate “sound doctrine.” These aren’t culturally limited offenses—they’re ethical universals grounded in divine revelation.
No qualifiers suggest Paul is thinking only of abusive relationships. In fact, he condemns the very act itself, regardless of the relational context.
D. What Did Paul Actually Know?
The claim that Paul had no concept of mutual same-sex relationships is historically false.
- Ancient Roman and Greek cultures were very familiar with homosexual relationships between consenting adult males.
- Same-sex partnerships, though often unequal, were not always coercive. Some were long-term, emotionally affectionate, and legally recognized.
- Plato’s Symposium and writings from authors like Lucian, Martial, and Juvenal show that Paul’s world knew about gay affection and desire.
In other words, Paul knew about loving same-sex relationships—and he rejected them as contrary to God’s design.
E. What Paul Didn’t Say—and Why That Matters
In each of Paul’s references to homosexual behavior:
- He could have said “abusive” (biaios), but he didn’t.
- He could have said “exploitative” (pleonektēs), but he didn’t.
- He could have used general words for immorality (ponēros) and clarified that he meant only violent acts—but he didn’t.
Instead, he condemns male-male sexual relations categorically, regardless of whether they were loving, mutual, or long-term.
Biblical Theology: Sex, Creation, and Covenant
To fully grasp the significance of Paul’s teaching, we must consider how it fits within the broader framework of biblical theology.
A. God’s Design in Genesis
“So God created man in His own image… male and female He created them.”
—Genesis 1:27
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
—Genesis 2:24
The pattern is clear: sex is designed for one man and one woman, in a covenantal union that reflects the image of God and the relationship between Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:31–32).
Same-sex relationships—no matter how consensual—do not fit this design. They do not reflect the biological, theological, or covenantal purposes of sex.
B. The Role of Desire
Progressive arguments often focus on the ethics of action—suggesting that if two people are in love and not harming anyone, their relationship must be morally good. But the Bible goes deeper: it evaluates not just behavior but desire.
“But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
—Matthew 5:28
Desires can be disordered. The gospel doesn’t just call us to change what we do—it calls us to repent of what we want when those wants contradict God’s will.
God’s Design in Biology: Form Follows Function
The moral order of God is not only written in Scripture—it’s etched into the human body.
A. Male and Female Complementarity
Biological sex is not an accident—it is a gift and a blueprint:
- Male and female sexual organs are designed to fit together in a way that is reproductive, symbolic, and covenantal.
- Only heterosexual sex can result in procreation, which is tied to the command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1:28).
- This design reflects the joining of opposites—difference in unity—a core biblical theme.
B. The Mechanics of Homosexual Sex
No matter how emotionally affectionate a same-sex relationship may be, the physical expression of that relationship cannot fulfill God’s design:
- Anal intercourse between males carries significant health risks:
- Increased likelihood of tissue damage, rectal tearing, and fecal contamination
- Higher rates of HIV and STDs due to the vulnerability of the rectal lining
- Lesbian acts lack any physical complementarity and simulate heterosexual intercourse through substitutes.
To put it plainly: the body testifies to the truth of Scripture. God made male and female to go together, both spiritually and physically. To assert otherwise is to reject both revelation and reason.
Rebutting the Progressive Misuse
Let’s now evaluate the popular revisionist claim in light of everything we’ve studied.
Claim: “Paul was only condemning abuse, not love.”
Rebuttal:
- There is no textual evidence that Paul limited his condemnation to abusive homosexual behavior.
- Paul’s word choices (arsenokoitai, malakoi, shameless acts, unnatural desires) are broad, moral, and universal—not culturally or relationally specific.
- Historical evidence shows Paul was aware of consensual same-sex relationships—and rejected them.
- Paul’s theology builds on creation order, not cultural observation.
- Paul’s solution is not redefinition—it is redemption through the gospel (1 Cor. 6:11).
This argument is not rooted in exegesis. It’s rooted in a desire to align the Bible with the sexual ethics of modern culture, often driven by empathy disconnected from truth.
Compassion without truth is sentimentality. Truth without compassion is cruelty. The gospel gives us both.
The Gospel: Hope for All Sinners
Paul doesn’t just condemn sin—he points to salvation:
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified…”
—1 Corinthians 6:11
This is the power of the gospel: not just to forgive sin, but to change identity.
We are not stuck with our disordered desires. In Christ:
- Our sins are forgiven.
- Our identities are redefined.
- Our desires are reshaped by the Holy Spirit.
- Our future is secured in the righteousness of Christ.
The gospel does not affirm same-sex relationships—it transforms same-sex attracted sinners into saints who find their identity in Christ, not their impulses.
Conclusion: Faithfulness, Not Fashion
The claim that “the Bible only condemns abusive same-sex relationships” is not a discovery—it’s a distortion.
It may sound more compassionate. It may feel more affirming. But it is not biblical. And it is not saving.
We cannot love people better than God does. And we cannot affirm what God has condemned without becoming false teachers ourselves.
Let the church reject revisionism. Let us hold fast to what is written. And let us declare to all people—gay, straight, broken, confused—that there is hope and healing in Jesus Christ alone.
S.D.G.,
Robert Sparkman
MMXXV
rob@basedchristianity.org
RELATED CONTENT
Concerning the Related Content section, I encourage everyone to evaluate the content carefully.
If I have listed the content, I think it is worthwhile viewing to educate yourself on the topic, but it may contain coarse language or some opinions I don’t agree with.
Realize that I sometimes use phrases like “trans man”, “trans woman”, “transgender” , “transition” or similar language for ease of communication. Obviously, as a conservative Christian, I don’t believe anyone has ever become the opposite sex. Unfortunately, we are forced to adopt the language of the left to discuss some topics without engaging in lengthy qualifying statements that make conversations awkward.
“Progressive” is another such word. I don’t believe that “Progressives” are a positive movement. “Progressive” is a euphemism for wokeness, Neo-Marxism, or “political correctness”.
“Progressive” in this sense is actually corruptive and harmful to mankind. “Progressive Christianity” is an anti-Christian movement that reflects apostasy.
Feel free to offer your comments below. Respectful comments without expletives and personal attacks will be posted and I will respond to them.
Comments are closed after sixty days due to spamming issues from internet bots. You can always send me an email at rob@basedchristianity.org if you want to comment on something afterwards, though.
I will continue to add videos and other items to the Related Content section as opportunities present themselves.